Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35075685›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Rapid assessment of insect pollination services to inform decision-making.

Fabrizia Ratto, Tom D Breeze, Lorna J Cole, Michael P D Garratt, David Kleijn, Bill Kunin, Denis Michez, Rory O'Connor, Jeff Ollerton, Robert J Paxton and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Rapid assessment of insect pollination services to inform decision-making.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    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

16 authors.

Fabrizia RattoSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8411-4379
Tom D BreezeCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Lorna J ColeIntegrated Land Management, Environment & Society, SRUC, Ayr, UK.
Michael P D GarrattCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
David KleijnResource Ecology Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Bill KuninSchool of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Denis MichezLaboratoire de Zoologie, Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium.
Rory O'ConnorCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Jeff OllertonFaculty of Arts, Science and Technology, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.
Robert J PaxtonGeneral Zoology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Guy M PoppySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Simon G PottsCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Deepa SenapathiCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Rosalind ShawEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK.
Lynn V DicksConservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Kelvin S-H PehSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pollinator declines have prompted efforts to assess how land-use change affects insect pollinators and pollination services in agricultural landscapes. Yet many tools to measure insect pollination services require substantial landscape-scale data and technical expertise. In expert workshops, 3 straightforward methods (desk-based method, field survey, and empirical manipulation with exclusion experiments) for rapid insect pollination assessment at site scale were developed to provide an adaptable framework that is accessible to nonspecialist with limited resources. These methods were designed for TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment) and allow comparative assessment of pollination services at a site of conservation interest and in its most plausible alternative state (e.g., converted to agricultural land). We applied the methods at a nature reserve in the United Kingdom to estimate the value of insect pollination services provided by the reserve. The economic value of pollination services provided by the reserve ranged from US$6163 to US$11,546/year. The conversion of the reserve to arable land would provide no insect pollination services and a net annual benefit from insect-pollinated crop production of approximately $1542/year (US$24∙ha

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalPollinationAnimalsBeesBrassica napusConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemInsectaVicia fabacolzadependency ratioecosystem servicesexclusion experimentexperimento de exclusiónfield beansfrecuencia de visitahaba comúníndice de dependenciainsectos polinizadoresinsect pollinatorsoilseed rapeservicios ambientalesTESSAvisitation frequency依赖率排除性实验昆虫授粉者油菜生态系统服务生态系统服务站点评估工具包(TESSA)蚕豆访花频率

Identifiers

PMID35075685
PMCPMC9542742

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.