The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ENDANGERED MUTUALISMS: The Conservation of Plant-Pollinator Interactions
Abstract
▪ Abstract The pollination of flowering plants by animals represents a critical ecosystem service of great value to humanity, both monetary and otherwise. However, the need for active conservation of pollination interactions is only now being appreciated. Pollination systems are under increasing threat from anthropogenic sources, including fragmentation of habitat, changes in land use, modern agricultural practices, use of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides, and invasions of non-native plants and animals. Honeybees, which themselves are non-native pollinators on most continents, and which may harm native bees and other pollinators, are nonetheless critically important for crop pollination. Recent declines in honeybee numbers in the United States and Europe bring home the importance of healthy pollination systems, and the need to further develop native bees and other animals as crop pollinators. The “pollination crisis” that is evident in declines of honeybees and native bees, and in damage to webs of plant-pollinator interaction, may be ameliorated not only by cultivation of a diversity of crop pollinators, but also by changes in habitat use and agricultural practices, species reintroductions and removals, and other means. In addition, ecologists must redouble efforts to study basic aspects of plant-pollinator interactions if optimal management decisions are to be made for conservation of these interactions in natural and agricultural ecosystems.
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
Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
Polis, G. A. (1991) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285208 · Cited by 1,041
Cited by
How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., & Tarrant, S. (2011) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x · Cited by 3,874
Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification
Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., & Thorp, R. W. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.262413599 · Cited by 1,928
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., et al. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12082 · Cited by 1,255
Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:sdeolc]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,187
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Kearns, C. A., Inouye, D. W., & Waser, N. M.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-112
- ISSN
- 0066-4162 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146345110
- Cited by
- 1,845
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.68
- 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: ENDANGERED MUTUALISMS: The Conservation of Plant-Pollinator Interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83
- The paper
- Kearns, C. A., Inouye, D. W., & Waser, N. M. (1998). ENDANGERED MUTUALISMS: The Conservation of Plant-Pollinator Interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83
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.