Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31513663›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Wild pollinator activity negatively related to honey bee colony densities in urban context.

Lise Ropars, Isabelle Dajoz, Colin Fontaine, Audrey Muratet, Benoît Geslin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Examining Honeybee (Ecology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Individual and social defenses inFrontiers in physiology · 2023
    Review
  14. Low resource availability drives feeding niche partitioning between wild bees and honeybees in a European city.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Pollinator richness, pollination networks, and diet adjustment along local and landscape gradients of resource diversity.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Lise RoparsIMBE, Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Université, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-2825
Isabelle DajozInstitut d'Ecologie et des Sciences de l'Environnement de Paris (iEES Paris UMR 7618) Equipe Ecologie et Evolution des réseaux d'interactions, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS-SU, Paris, France.
Colin FontaineCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR 7204), CNRS-Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle-SU, Paris, France.
Audrey MuratetAgence Régionale de la Biodiversité en Île-de-France (ARB ÎdF), Paris, France.
Benoît GeslinIMBE, Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Université, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As pollinator decline is increasingly reported in natural and agricultural environments, cities are perceived as shelters for pollinators because of low pesticide exposure and high floral diversity throughout the year. This has led to the development of environmental policies supporting pollinators in urban areas. However, policies are often restricted to the promotion of honey bee colony installations, which resulted in a strong increase in apiary numbers in cities. Recently, competition for floral resources between wild pollinators and honey bees has been highlighted in semi-natural contexts, but whether urban beekeeping could impact wild pollinators remains unknown. Here, we show that in the city of Paris (France), wild pollinator visitation rates are negatively correlated to honey bee colony densities present in the surrounding landscape (500m -slope = -0.614; p = 0.001 -and 1000m -slope = -0.489; p = 0.005). Regarding the morphological groups of wild pollinators, large solitary bee and beetle visitation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony densities within a 500m buffer (slope = -0.425, p = 0.007 and slope = - 0.671, p = 0.002, respectively) and bumblebee visitation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope = - 0.451, p = 0.012). Further, lower interaction evenness in plant-pollinator networks was observed with high honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope = -0.487, p = 0.008). Finally, honey bees tended to focus their foraging activity on managed rather than wild plant species (student t-test, p = 0.001) whereas wild pollinators equally visited managed and wild species. We advocate responsible practices mitigating the introduction of high density of honey bee colonies in urban environments. Further studies are however needed to deepen our knowledge about the potential negative interactions between wild and domesticated pollinators.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimal DistributionAnimalsBeekeepingBeesCitiesFlowersParisPollination

Identifiers

PMID31513663
PMCPMC6742366

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.