Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40763813›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025

Drivers of nocturnal and diurnal pollinating insect declines in urban landscapes.

Emilie E Ellis, Stuart A Campbell, Jill L Edmondson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Emilie E EllisSchool of Bioscience, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7862-3353
Stuart A CampbellSchool of Bioscience, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.
Jill L EdmondsonSchool of Bioscience, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilGrantham Centre for Sustainable FuturesNatural Environment Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insect pollinators are essential for terrestrial ecosystems, delivering key ecosystem functions in the face of anthropogenic disturbance. Urbanization may be a key threat to pollinator communities. However, the scale of the threat remains unknown due to an overwhelming research emphasis on bees and a lack of comparative studies on hyper-diverse pollinating taxa such as nocturnal moths. As a result, it remains unclear which pollinator groups are most vulnerable to urbanization, and which habitat features are most critical for supporting them. We conducted a large-scale assessment of the effects of increasing urbanization on the diversity of bees, hoverflies and nocturnal moths in urban horticultural sites (allotments) across three cities. We report up to a 43% reduction in species richness along urbanization gradients, suggesting that a wide range of pollinators are under threat in urban landscapes. We show that these declines are driven by taxon-specific landscape drivers such as the reduction of tree canopy and semi-natural habitat, suggesting that urban insect conservation depends on the preservation or expansion of habitat features specific to different threatened taxa. We found that relative to bees, moths and hoverflies are particularly sensitive to urbanization, and we highlight the importance of including these frequently overlooked pollinator groups when assessing the biodiversity impacts of environmental change.

Indexed as

BiodiversityInsectaMothsPollinationUrbanizationAnimalsBeesCitiesEcosystemHymenopteraLepidopterapollinator communitiespollinator declinesSyrphidaeurbanization

Identifiers

PMID40763813
PMCPMC12324870

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.