The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Positive and Negative Impacts of Non-Native Bee Species around the World
Open accessAbstract
Though they are relatively understudied, non-native bees are ubiquitous and have enormous potential economic and environmental impacts. These impacts may be positive or negative, and are often unquantified. In this manuscript, I review literature on the known distribution and environmental and economic impacts of 80 species of introduced bees. The potential negative impacts of non-native bees include competition with native bees for nesting sites or floral resources, pollination of invasive weeds, co-invasion with pathogens and parasites, genetic introgression, damage to buildings, affecting the pollination of native plant species, and changing the structure of native pollination networks. The potential positive impacts of non-native bees include agricultural pollination, availability for scientific research, rescue of native species, and resilience to human-mediated disturbance and climate change. Most non-native bee species are accidentally introduced and nest in stems, twigs, and cavities in wood. In terms of number of species, the best represented families are Megachilidae and Apidae, and the best represented genus is Megachile. The best studied genera are Apis and Bombus, and most of the species in these genera were deliberately introduced for agricultural pollination. Thus, we know little about the majority of non-native bees, accidentally introduced or spreading beyond their native ranges.
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
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (2005) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002 · Cited by 4,771
Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M. A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., Carvalheiro, L. G., Harder, L. D., Afik, O., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1230200 · Cited by 2,668
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects
LOSEY, J. E., & VAUGHAN, M. (2006) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:tevoes]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,942
Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009–2019
Kovacs, K. F., Haight, R. G., McCullough, D. G., Mercader, R. J., Siegert, N. W., & Liebhold, A. M. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.004 · Cited by 456
SPECIALIZED BEES FAIL TO DEVELOP ON NON-HOST POLLEN: DO PLANTS CHEMICALLY PROTECT THEIR POLLEN
Praz, C. J., Müller, A., & Dorn, S. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0751.1 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Authors
- Russo, L.
- Venue
- Insects
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2016-11-28
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 69
- ISSN
- 2075-4450 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2557644634
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 11.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Positive and Negative Impacts of Non-Native Bee Species around the World. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/insects7040069
- The paper
- Russo, L. (2016). Positive and Negative Impacts of Non-Native Bee Species around the World. Insects. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7040069
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.