Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 461

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Human Disturbance on Bee Communities in a Forested Ecosystem

WINFREE, RACHAEL, GRISWOLD, TERRY, KREMEN, CLAIRE·2007·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: It is important for conservation biologists to understand how well species persist in human‐dominated ecosystems because protected areas constitute a small fraction of the Earth's surface and because anthropogenic habitats may offer more opportunities for conservation than has been previously thought. We investigated how an important functional group, pollinators (bees; Hymenoptera: Apiformes), are affected by human land use at the landscape and local scales in southern New Jersey (U.S.A.). We established 40 sites that differed in surrounding landscape cover or local habitat type and collected 2551 bees of 130 species. The natural habitat in this ecosystem is a forested, ericaceous heath. Bee abundance and species richness within forest habitat decreased, not increased, with increasing forest cover in the surrounding landscape. Similarly, bee abundance was greater in agricultural fields and suburban and urban developments than in extensive forests, and the same trend was found for species richness. Particular species groups that might be expected to show greater sensitivity to habitat loss, such as floral specialists and bees of small or large body size, did not show strong positive associations with forest habitat. Nevertheless, 18 of the 130 bee species studied were positively associated with extensive forest. One of these species is a narrow endemic that was last seen in 1939. Our results suggest that at least in this system, moderate anthropogenic land use may be compatible with the conservation of many, but not all, bee species.

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/j.1523-1739.2006.00574.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

  • Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists

    Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674 · cited 1×

    “It then positions the sites graphically in two or more dimensions so as to maximize the rank correlation between the pairwise intersite distances calculated by the ecological measure and the pairwise intersite distances in the graphical ordination (McCune & Grace 2002; Quinn & Keough 2002).”
    Method

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 461

Metadata

Authors
WINFREE, R., GRISWOLD, T., & KREMEN, C.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-06
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
213-223
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2157720020
Cited by
461
References
1
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Effect of Human Disturbance on Bee Communities in a Forested Ecosystem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00574.x
The paper
WINFREE, R., GRISWOLD, T., & KREMEN, C. (2007). Effect of Human Disturbance on Bee Communities in a Forested Ecosystem. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00574.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.