ReviewEcology letters2025
Pollinator-Promoting Interventions in European Urban Habitats-A Synthesis.
Review in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pollinator-Promoting Interventions in European Urban Habitats-A Synthesis.Ecology letters · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pollinators receive considerable interest due to their fundamental role in ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Unlike farmlands, studies of urban pollinator-promoting interventions are scarce and have not been synthesised, hampering policy implementation. To fill this gap, we compared pollinator-promoting interventions (treatment) with conventionally managed (control) sites regarding vegetation, floral resources, and pollinators. Our synthesis investigated 1051 sampling sites with different interventions (abandonment, extensive mowing, flower sowing, and combined practices) and habitats (parks, grasslands, road verges, private and public gardens) from 28 European datasets at pooled- and study-levels. Urban pollinator-promoting interventions generally benefited plants and pollinators with taxon, intervention, habitat, and spatio-temporal specific differences. Pooled analyses showed mostly positive and never negative treatment effects, while study-level details described primarily positive and neutral but rarely negative effects. Bumblebees and butterflies benefited most from the interventions. Some effects were stronger for interventions involving flower sowing, interventions occurring in road verges, and interventions located in Northwestern Europe. Although regulations, guidelines, and monitoring are improving, knowledge gaps remain for some pollinator taxa (e.g., beetles), regions (e.g., Mediterranean), and novel interventions (e.g., for ground-nesting insects). Further collaborative studies from around the world could help cities bring people, plants, and pollinators together by creating resilient, multi-functional urban spaces.
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.