ArticleiScience2023
The buzz around biodiversity decline: Detecting pollinator shifts using a systematic review.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared pathogens among honey bees, wild bees and hoverflies in mountain ecosystems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Three decades of declines restructure butterfly communities in the Midwestern United States.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Market-Based Instruments for Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes: An Evaluation of Quality Criteria in a German case study.Environmental management · 2025Article
- WildFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate and land use change are two of the largest drivers of worldwide biodiversity loss, but detecting drivers of insect decline is more complex. Online data sources can elucidate such responses while identifying systematic data gaps. Using a systematic review, we found 119 studies that document bumble bee and butterfly responses to climate change. While bee literature was limited, there is high confidence that species are emerging earlier (∼17 days), mismatching with floral resources (100% of studies), and changing range distributions (-25%). More butterfly literature was available but did not yield consistent responses. Evidence shows earlier emergences (∼5 days), decreasing range distributions (-19%), and population shifts amongst generalist (87% increase) versus specialist (65% decrease) groups. We argue that the effect of changing climates on floral emergence, abundance, and distribution may be more significant than the impact of climate change on biodiversity; however, further research is required, particularly within the Southern Hemisphere.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.