ArticleGlobal change biology2026
Assessing Pollinator Community Recovery in Restored Agroecosystems Using the Recovery Debt Framework.
Article in Global change biology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recovery debt (RD) quantifies the interim deficit of biodiversity and function during the recovery process after disturbance. Unlike typical recovery indices derived from data on experimental-control comparisons, RD further considers the target (reference) biodiversity level, modelling the rate at which it is approached over time. However, the application of the RD approach to active restoration has not been explicitly implemented to date. Here, we extend the RD framework to evaluate active ecological restoration in agricultural systems, defining the onset of recovery as the shift from intensive to wildlife-friendly management. We applied this approach to assess short-term pollinator recovery in 14 olive groves across a gradient of farming intensification and landscape complexity in southern Spain. Restoration actions included adopting low-intensity ground cover management and actively restoring field margins. At 1, 3 and 5 years post-restoration, we assessed community responses by quantifying bee abundance, species richness, plant-bee network properties and flower visitation rates. Reference systems were defined by olive groves in complex landscapes with low-intensity herb cover management and organic farming practices. Following restoration, the RD of bee abundance decreased from 71% to 55%. We found no significant effects of pre-intervention agricultural management on RD. Instead, across sites, the reduction of the RD (i.e., recovery) of bee abundance, richness, network connectance and flower visitation rate was strongly mediated by the availability of high-quality semi-natural areas in the surrounding landscape and by the ecological contrast created by restoration interventions at both the farm and floral patch levels. RD for other network metrics showed no significant pattern of variation. Our study demonstrates that wildlife-friendly management and targeted habitat restoration can rapidly reduce recovery debt for bee abundance and function in permanent agroecosystems. However, the recovery of more complex interaction-network properties likely requires longer timescales.
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.