Pollinator nesting guilds respond differently to urban habitat fragmentation in an oak‐savannah ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Habitat fragmentation is thought to threaten biodiversity, but the response of pollinators to fragmentation is still poorly understood, and research seldom includes pollinator nesting requirements. 2. We investigated pollinator community composition in a highly fragmented oak‐savannah ecosystem in south‐western British Columbia, Canada. We sampled pollinators in 19 fragments ranging from 0.3 to 31 ha and surrounded by a variety of land‐use types, including forest, low‐density suburban, and urban neighbourhoods. Pan‐trapping and netting surveys captured 4464 bees, flies, and wasps in 138 species and 48 genera. 3. Contrary to expectations, overall species richness did not increase with fragment size. However, ground‐nester abundance (not diversity) and cavity‐nester diversity (not abundance) were higher in larger fragments, as expected. Floral richness and abundance did not foster pollinator diversity for either guild. Brood parasite responses were complex: host availability (ground‐nesting bees) was generally important, richness and abundance increased in fragments with high surrounding road density, and abundance also increased in fragments with other habitat fragments nearby. 4. Responses of different nesting guilds to fragmentation may be related to their use of the landscape surrounding habitat fragments. Some common cavity nesters can nest in fences and gardens, but urban land use may be less hospitable for ground nesters. Brood parasites apparently respond both to host availability and landscape characteristics associated with movement among fragments. 5. Consideration of nesting requirements of pollinators provided some insight into their response to habitat loss in our analysis and should be considered in future studies of fragmentation impacts on pollinator biodiversity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".