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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1890/08-1245.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 57 references

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Aguilar R., 2005, Effects of forest fragmentation on the reproductive success of native plant species from the Chaco Serrano forest of Central Argentina
  2. Klemm M., 1996, The conservation of bees, 17
  3. Linder H. P., 1998, Reproductive biology, 123
  4. Mohra C., 2004, Solitary bees: conservation, rearing and management for pollination, 85
  5. Rosenberg M. S., 2000, MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis, version 2.0
  6. Westrich P., 1996, The conservation of bees, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08
Volume
90
Issue
8
Pages
2068-2076
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
DOI
10.1890/08-1245.1
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
Licence
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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › 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