ArticleNature ecology & evolution2026
Pesticides and habitat loss additively reduce wild bees in crop fields.
Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Structure and Foraging Behavior of Flower-Visiting Insects in a Sweet Cherry Orchard in Eastern Gansu, China.Insects · 2026Article
- Sulfoxaflor reduces food intake and learning efficiency of solitary Osmia bicornis bees.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pollinator Dependency and Regional Climate Affect Crop Yield Development Under Climate Change.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Pesticides and habitat loss additively reduce wild bees in crop fields.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
63 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pesticide use and habitat loss are major anthropogenic drivers of bee decline, raising global concerns about impaired crop pollination. However, the relative importance of these stressors and their combined impact on bee assemblages comprising species with different traits, such as body size or nesting strategy, remains unknown. Here we addressed these key knowledge gaps in a global quantitative synthesis analysing bee assemblage data from 681 crop fields across three continents. We found that both local pesticide hazards and decreasing proportions of semi-natural habitats in surrounding landscapes negatively affected wild bee abundance and species richness in crop fields, while pesticides additionally reduced functional and phylogenetic diversity. Semi-natural habitat availability did not buffer against these negative pesticide effects, nor did we identify any specific traits rending bees more vulnerable to one of the two drivers. Our findings highlight the pressing need to reduce non-target effects of pesticide use and emphasize that conservation and restoration of semi-natural habitats successfully promote wild bees, but are insufficient strategies to mitigate pesticide-driven losses of wild bee pollinators from crop fields.
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.