The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Attempts to restore damaged ecosystems usually emphasize structural aspects of biodiversity, such as species richness and abundance. An alternative is to emphasize functional aspects, such as patterns of interaction between species. Pollination is a ubiquitous interaction between plants and animals. Patterns in plant–pollinator interactions can be analysed with a food web or complex‐systems approach and comparing pollination webs between restored and reference sites can be used to test whether ecological restoration has taken place. Using an ecological network approach, we compared plant–pollinator interactions on four pairs of restored and ancient heathlands 11 and 14 years following initiation of restoration management. We used the network data to test whether visitation by pollinators had been restored and we calculated pollinator importance indices for each insect species on the eight sites. Finally, we compared the robustness of the restored and ancient networks to species loss. Plant and pollinator communities were established successfully on the restored sites. There was little evidence of movement of pollinators from ancient sites onto adjacent restored sites, although paired sites correlated in pollinator species richness in both years. There was little insect species overlap within each heathland between 2001 and 2004. A few widespread insect species dominated the communities and were the main pollinators. The most important pollinators were typically honeybees (Apis mellifera), species of bumblebee (Bombus spp.) and one hoverfly species (Episyrphus balteatus). The interaction networks were significantly less complex on restored heathlands, in terms of connectance values, although in 2004 the low values might reflect the negative relationship between connectance and species richness. Finally, there was a trend of restored networks being more susceptible to perturbation than ancient networks, although this needs to be interpreted with caution. Synthesis and applications. Ecological networks provide a powerful tool for assessing the outcome of restoration programmes. Our results indicate that heathland restoration does not have to occur immediately adjacent to ancient heathland for functional pollinator communities to be established. Moreover, in terms of restoring pollinator interactions, heathland managers need only be concerned with the most common insect species. Our focus on pollination demonstrates how a key ecological service can serve as a yardstick for judging restoration success.
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
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems
Pharo, E., & Daily, G. C. (1998) · The Bryologist · doi:10.2307/3244191 · Cited by 5,261
The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100 · Cited by 2,497
Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters
Waser, N. M., Chittka, L., Price, M. V., Williams, N. M., & Ollerton, J. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265575 · Cited by 1,934
ENDANGERED MUTUALISMS: The Conservation of Plant-Pollinator Interactions
Kearns, C. A., Inouye, D. W., & Waser, N. M. (1998) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83 · Cited by 1,845
Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00354.x · Cited by 1,812
Techniques for pollination biologists
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-2107 · Cited by 1,500
Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions
Memmott, J., Waser, N. M., & Price, M. V. (2004) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2909 · Cited by 1,238
Self-citationForaging ranges of solitary bees
Gathmann, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2002) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x · Cited by 1,134
Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology
Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., & Poff, N. L. (1997) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.1997.00543.x · Cited by 1,120
Cited by
Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function
Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N., Mougal, J., Whittington, A. E., Valentin, T., Gabriel, R., Olesen, J. M., & Blüthgen, N. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21071 · Cited by 414
The conservation and restoration of wild bees
Winfree, R. (2010) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05449.x · Cited by 398
Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective
Bosch, J., Martín González, A. M., Rodrigo, A., & Navarro, D. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01296.x · Cited by 293
Temperton, V. M., Buchmann, N., Buisson, E., Durigan, G., Kazmierczak, Ł., Perring, M. P., de Sá Dechoum, M., Veldman, J. W., & Overbeck, G. E. (2019) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12989 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Forup, M. L., Henson, K. S. E., Craze, P. G., & Memmott, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 742-752
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2171864119
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 21.98
- 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: The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01390.x
- The paper
- Forup, M. L., Henson, K. S. E., Craze, P. G., & Memmott, J. (2008). The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01390.x
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.