Cited by 1,050Plant and animal studiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior

A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance

Open access
Winfree, Rachael, Aguilar, Ramiro, Vázquez, Diego P., LeBuhn, Gretchen, Aizen, Marcelo A.·2009·Ecology

Abstract

Pollinators may be declining globally, a matter of concern because animal pollination is required by most of the world's plant species, including many crop plants. Human land use and the loss of native habitats is thought to be an important driver of decline for wild, native pollinators, yet the findings of published studies on this topic have never been quantitatively synthesized. Here we use meta‐analysis to synthesize the literature on how bees, the most important group of pollinators, are affected by human disturbances such as habitat loss, grazing, logging, and agriculture. We obtained 130 effect sizes from 54 published studies recording bee abundance and/or species richness as a function of human disturbance. Both bee abundance and species richness were significantly, negatively affected by disturbance. However, the magnitude of the effects was not large. Furthermore, the only disturbance type showing a significant negative effect, habitat loss and fragmentation, was statistically significant only in systems where very little natural habitat remains. Therefore, it would be premature to draw conclusions about habitat loss having caused global pollinator decline without first assessing the extent to which the existing studies represent the status of global ecosystems. Future pollinator declines seem likely given forecasts of increasing land‐use change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/08-1245.1

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Current data suggest an overall pattern of decline in insect diversity and abundance.

    “Current data suggest an overall pattern of decline in insect diversity and abundance.”
  • Data for bees and moths suggest the same declining trend as for other well-studied taxa.

    “Data for other well-studied taxa such as bees [8–14] and moths [15–18] suggest the same trend.”
  • The number of studies on insect trends with sufficient replication and spatial coverage is limited and restricted to certain well-studied taxa.

    “However, the number of studies on insect trends with sufficient replication and spatial coverage are limited [10, 23–25] and restricted to certain well-studied taxa.”
  • Recently reported declines in butterflies, wild bees and moths are in parallel with a severe loss of total aerial insect biomass, suggesting that the flying insect community as a whole has been decimated over the last few decades.

    “Our results demonstrate that recently reported declines in several taxa such as butterflies [7, 25–27, 58], wild bees [8–14] and moths [15–18], are in parallel with a severe loss of total aerial insect biomass, suggesting that it is not only the vulnerable species, but the flying insect community as a whole, that has been decimated over the last few decades.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vázquez, D. P., LeBuhn, G., & Aizen, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • Universidad Nacional del Comahue (AR)
Corresponding author
Winfree, Rachael
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08
Volume
90
Issue
8
Pages
2068-2076
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2146145096
Cited by
1,050
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 44
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
National Academy of Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Keywords
bees, pollinator decline, human disturbance, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, land use change, bee abundance, bee species richness, grazing, logging, pollination
MeSH terms
Animals, Bees, Behavior, Animal, Human Activities, Biodiversity

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