Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877581›Full record

ArticleEcological entomology2015

How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge.

Lynn V Dicks, Mathilde Baude, Stuart P M Roberts, James Phillips, Mike Green, Claire Carvell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological entomology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Species-habitat networks reveal conservation implications that other community analyses do not detect.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. From science to society: implementing effective strategies to improve wild pollinator health.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Nesting behaviour and foraging characteristics ofSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lynn V DicksDepartment of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge U.K.
Mathilde BaudeCollegium Sciences et Techniques, LBLGC EA 1207, Université d'Orléans Orléans France; School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol Bristol U.K.
Stuart P M RobertsCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading Reading U.K.
James PhillipsNatural England Somerset U.K.
Mike GreenNatural England Worcester U.K.
Claire CarvellNERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Oxfordshire U.K.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland.

Indexed as

Agri‐environment schemeApoideabeefarmfloral resourceslandscapepolicy windowpollenpollinationpollinator

Identifiers

PMID26877581
PMCPMC4737402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.