Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Myths of Restoration Ecology

Open access
Hilderbrand, Robert H., Watts, Adam C., Randle, April M.·2005·Ecology and Society

Abstract

Pollinator conservation is of increasing interest in the light of managed honeybee (Apis mellifera) declines, and declines in some species of wild bees.Much work has gone into understanding the effects of habitat enhancements in agricultural systems on wild bee abundance, richness and pollination services.However, the effects of ecological restoration targeting "natural" ecological endpoints (e.g.restoring former agricultural fields to historic vegetation types or improving degraded natural lands) on wild bees have received relatively little attention, despite their potential importance for countering habitat loss.2. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of ecological restoration on wild bee abundance and richness, focusing on unmanaged bee communities in lands restored and managed to increase habitat availability and quality.Specifically, we assessed bee abundance and/or richness across studies comparing restored vs.unrestored treatments and studies investigating effects of specific habitat restoration techniques, such as burning, grazing, invasive plant removal and seeding.3. We analysed 28 studies that met our selection criteria: these represented 11 habitat types and 7 restoration techniques.Nearly all restorations associated with these studies were performed without explicit consideration of habitat needs for bees or other pollinators.The majority of restorations targeted plant community goals, which could potentially have ancillary benefits for bees.4. Restoration had overall positive effects on wild bee abundance and richness across multiple habitat types.Specific restoration actions, tested independently, also tended to have positive effects on wild bee richness and abundance. Synthesis and applications.We found strong evidence that ecological restoration advances wild bee conservation.This is important given that habitat loss is recognized as a leading factor in pollinator decline.Pollinator responses to land management are rarely evaluated in non-agricultural settings and so support for wild bees may be an underappreciated benefit of botanically focused management.Future restoration projects that explicitly consider the needs of wild bees could be more effective at providing nesting, foraging and other habitat resources.We encourage land managers to design and evaluate restoration projects with the habitat needs of wild bee species in mind.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5751/es-01277-100119

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M.
Venue
Ecology and Society
Published
2005
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134289046
Cited by
554
References
3
FWCI
17.98
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: The Myths of Restoration Ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5751/es-01277-100119
The paper
Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005). The Myths of Restoration Ecology. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-01277-100119

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.