Plenty of flowers in the field: the roles of resource availability and habitat type in the conservation of flower-visiting insects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The conservation of flower-visiting insects is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor given their critical role in the pollination of wildflowers and crops. A lack of flowers is often cited as one of the reasons for declines of important flower-visiting taxa such as bees, so conservation and restoration efforts often revolve around the planting of native wildflowers. Given the wide variety of native wildflowers available to choose from and the expense of sourcing local seed, selecting the most preferred (i.e., the most widely visited) flowers is of the utmost importance. Flower abundance obscures preference because neutral processes, which are thought to be an important determinant of flower-visitor interactions, suggest that an abundant flower is more likely by chance to receive a visit than a rare flower. Therefore, to control for flower abundance and remove the effect of neutral processes on the data, many researchers use preference metrics to select the most preferred flowers from flower visitation data. There are a wide variety of metrics to use, and when I compared five of them using the same flower visitation dataset, I found that they produced wildly different results. The contrasting results were likely due to the varying extent to which each metric controlled for flower abundance and how strongly each metric responded to undersampling. When I experimentally controlled for flower abundance using potted plants of the five most and five least preferred plants as calculated by each metric, I found that the metrics that least controlled for flower abundance best predicted flower visitation. Furthermore, I conducted the potted plant trials in two adjacent natural regions (Grassland and Parkland) and found that insect-flower preferences changed between them, likely due to the differences in the insect communities in each natural region. However, flower abundance in the original Grassland dataset predicted flower visitation better than any metric in both regions. Thus, abundant flowers were preferred by flower-visiting insects, but not because they were abundant, and the effect of neutral processes on flower-visitor data may be overestimated. Understanding how flower-visiting insect communities and flower-visitor interactions vary among already established flower communities and habitat types will help guide flower-visiting insect conservation efforts. In agricultural systems, mass-flowering crop bloom causes the amount of floral resources on the landscape changes dramatically throughout the flight period of many insect species, which can change how they interact with other flowers and how they move about agricultural fields. When I compared flower-visiting insect species composition and flower-visitor interactions within and in field borders adjacent to canola fields in central Alberta, I found that field border type (herbaceous or treed) ultimately drove flower-visiting insect and flower-visitor interaction diversity in agricultural systems. In fact, mass-flowering crop bloom generally had a negative effect on flower-visitor interactions as interactions decreased significantly during canola bloom compared to before or after. However, that result was not consistent in 2022 as it depended on border type. I also found that hoverflies, and particularly one species, Toxomerus marginatus, are integral insects in agricultural systems in central Alberta because they were common crop visitors, especially compared to wild bees which rarely visited canola. When I measured hoverfly movement into and out of canola crops using bi-directional Malaise traps set in the borders of canola fields, I found that field border type and not mass-flowering crop bloom affected hoverfly movement. Finally, from my Malaise trap sampling, I found new Alberta records for a hoverfly species (Platycheirus varipes), along with multiple rare species that were previously either of conservation concern, rarely found (< 15 records across their entire range), or only found via iNaturalist records. Overall, my thesis demonstrates that habitat type (through the comparison of natural regions and field border types respectively) matters more than the quantity of floral resources in shaping insect-flower visitation and insect communities. Flower-visiting insect conservation should focus on diversifying resources, even on a relatively small scale, to conserve the broadest number of species possible. Finally, I also demonstrated the prevalence and likely importance to ecosystem services of hoverflies in agricultural areas in central Alberta.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».