Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37082326›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2023

A global meta-analysis reveals contrasting impacts of air, light, and noise pollution on pollination.

Solène Guenat, Martin Dallimer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Inequalities in noise will affect urban wildlife.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Potential Regional Pollination Services ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Solène GuenatSustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment University of Leeds LS2 9JT Leeds UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2077-405X
Martin DallimerSustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment University of Leeds LS2 9JT Leeds UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8120-3309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the face of biodiversity decline, understanding the impact of anthropogenic disturbances on ecosystem functions is critical for mitigation. Elevated levels of pollution are a major threat to biodiversity, yet there is no synthesis of their impact on many of the major ecosystem functions, including pollination. This ecosystem function is both particularly vulnerable as it depends on the fine-tuned interaction between plants and pollinators and hugely important as it underpins the flora of most habitats as well as food production. Here, we untangle the impact of air, light, and noise pollution on the pollination system by systematically evaluating and synthesizing the published evidence via a meta-analysis. We identified 58 peer-reviewed articles from three databases. Mixed-effects meta-regression models indicated that air pollution negatively impacts pollination. However, there was no effect of light pollution, despite previous studies that concentrated solely on pollinators suggesting a negative impact. Evidence for noise pollution was extremely limited. Unless action is taken to tackle air pollution, the capacity to support well-functioning diverse pollination systems will be compromised, with negative consequences for habitat conservation and food security.

Indexed as

anthropogenic disturbancesecosystem functions and servicesplant reproductive successpollinatorspollutantssynthesis

Identifiers

PMID37082326
PMCPMC10111172

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.