ArticlePeerJ2024
High variability in the attractiveness of municipally-planted decorative plants to insects.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insect populations are declining globally. A major driver of this decline is land use change, including urbanisation. However, urban environments can also offer a wide range of floral resources to pollinators, through ornamental plantings, but these can vary widely in their attractiveness to insects. Often, the largest single planter of ornamental plants in an urban area is the municipality. Here we evaluated the decorative plantings carried out by the city municipality of Regensburg, Germany, by systematically surveying insect visitations on different plant types in late summer, when forage is often limited for pollinators. We found a 130-fold difference from the least to the most attractive plants, and high variation in which insect groups were attracted to which plants. While honey bees, which are not a conservation concern, were the most common insect visitors, some decorative plants attracted a very large proportion of wild bees, flies, and wasps. Our results demonstrate that there is great scope for increasing the supply of urban forage to pollinators in general, and specific groups in particular, without requiring new decorative plant types to be sourced or planted. We argue that providing local evidence-based guidance to municipalities offers a quick and potentially cost-neutral method for supporting urban insect populations.
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.