Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33909661›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Evaluating competition for forage plants between honey bees and wild bees in Denmark.

Claus Rasmussen, Yoko L Dupont, Henning Bang Madsen, Petr Bogusch, Dave Goulson, Lina Herbertsson, Kate Pereira Maia, Anders Nielsen, Jens M Olesen, Simon G Potts and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Occurrence of Honey Bee (Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

13 authors.

Claus RasmussenDepartment of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1529-6548
Yoko L DupontDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Kalø, Denmark.
Henning Bang MadsenDepartment of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Petr BoguschFaculty of Science, University of Hradec Králové, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4554-6141
Dave GoulsonSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4421-2876
Lina HerbertssonCentre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8802-1409
Kate Pereira MaiaInstitute of Biosciences, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Anders NielsenNorwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Ås, Norway and Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jens M OlesenDepartment of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Simon G PottsCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Stuart P M RobertsCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Markus Arne Kjær SydenhamNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo, Norway.
Per KrygerDepartment of Agroecology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Aarhus University, Slagelse, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recurrent concern in nature conservation is the potential competition for forage plants between wild bees and managed honey bees. Specifically, that the highly sophisticated system of recruitment and large perennial colonies of honey bees quickly exhaust forage resources leading to the local extirpation of wild bees. However, different species of bees show different preferences for forage plants. We here summarize known forage plants for honey bees and wild bee species at national scale in Denmark. Our focus is on floral resources shared by honey bees and wild bees, with an emphasis on both threatened wild bee species and foraging specialist species. Across all 292 known bee species from Denmark, a total of 410 plant genera were recorded as forage plants. These included 294 plant genera visited by honey bees and 292 plant genera visited by different species of wild bees. Honey bees and wild bees share 176 plant genera in Denmark. Comparing the pairwise niche overlap for individual bee species, no significant relationship was found between their overlap and forage specialization or conservation status. Network analysis of the bee-plant interactions placed honey bees aside from most other bee species, specifically the module containing the honey bee had fewer links to any other modules, while the remaining modules were more highly inter-connected. Despite the lack of predictive relationship from the pairwise niche overlap, data for individual species could be summarized. Consequently, we have identified a set of operational parameters that, based on a high foraging overlap (>70%) and unfavorable conservation status (Vulnerable+Endangered+Critically Endangered), can guide both conservation actions and land management decisions in proximity to known or suspected populations of these species.

Indexed as

BeesFlowersPollenPollinationAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesDenmarkEndangered Species

Identifiers

PMID33909661
PMCPMC8081269

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.