The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The conservation and restoration of wild bees
Abstract
Bees pollinate most of the world's wild plant species and provide economically valuable pollination services to crops; yet knowledge of bee conservation biology lags far behind other taxa such as vertebrates and plants. There are few long‐term data on bee populations, which makes their conservation status difficult to assess. The best‐studied groups are the genus Bombus(the bumble bees), and bees in the EU generally; both of these are clearly declining. However, it is not known to what extent these groups represent the approximately 20,000 species of bees globally. As is the case for insects in general, bees are underrepresented in conservation planning and protection efforts. For example, only two bee species are on the global IUCN Red List, and no bee is listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, even though many bee species are known to be in steep decline or possibly extinct. At present, bee restoration occurs mainly in agricultural contexts, funded by government programs such as agri‐environment schemes (EU) and the Farm Bill (USA). This is a promising approach given that many bee species can use human‐disturbed habitats, and bees provide valuable pollination services to crops. However, agricultural restorations only benefit species that persist in agricultural landscapes, and they are more expensive than preserving natural habitat elsewhere. Furthermore, such restorations benefit bees in only about half of studied cases. More research is greatly needed in many areas of bee conservation, including basic population biology, bee restoration in nonagricultural contexts, and the identification of disturbance‐sensitive 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.
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
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., & Wilson, J. D. (2003) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00011-9 · Cited by 3,205
Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504 · Cited by 3,160
Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change
Warren, M. S., Hill, J. K., Thomas, J. A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., Roy, D. B., Telfer, M. G., Jeffcoate, S., Harding, P., et al. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35102054 · Cited by 1,333
Decline and conservation of bumble bees
Goulson, D., Lye, G. C., & Darvill, B. (2008) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454 · Cited by 1,183
Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri‐environment schemes in five European countries
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., et al. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x · Cited by 1,081
A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vázquez, D. P., LeBuhn, G., & Aizen, M. A. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-1245.1 · Cited by 1,050
Self-citationComparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis
Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., & Lawton, J. H. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1095046 · Cited by 955
Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005
Rudel, T. K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner, B. L., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., Geoghegan, J., Hecht, S., Ickowitz, A., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0812540106 · Cited by 611
Cited by
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Rader, R., Bartomeus, I., Garibaldi, L. A., Garratt, M. P. D., Howlett, B. G., Winfree, R., Cunningham, S. A., Mayfield, M. M., Arthur, A. D., Andersson, G. K. S., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517092112 · Cited by 1,000
Self-citationBlaauw, B. R., & Isaacs, R. (2014) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12257 · Cited by 631
Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits
Bartomeus, I., Ascher, J. S., Gibbs, J., Danforth, B. N., Wagner, D. L., Hedtke, S. M., & Winfree, R. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1218503110 · Cited by 555
Self-citationHedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields
Morandin, L. A., & Kremen, C. (2013) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/12-1051.1 · Cited by 373
Scheper, J., Reemer, M., van Kats, R., Ozinga, W. A., van der Linden, G. T. J., Schaminée, J. H. J., Siepel, H., & Kleijn, D. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1412973111 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Winfree, R.
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 1195
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 169-197
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W2098496122
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 15.98
- 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: The conservation and restoration of wild bees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05449.x
- The paper
- Winfree, R. (2010). The conservation and restoration of wild bees. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05449.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.
