MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982396399 · doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20127043

The positive contribution of invertebrates to sustainable agriculture and food security.

2012· article· en· W1982396399 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J.W. Cock, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, R. J. C. Cannon, P.J. Gerard, David R. Gillespie, Juan J. Jiménez, Patrick Lavelle, S. K. Raina

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvertebrateEcologyAgricultureContext (archaeology)Soil biologySustainable agricultureBiologyEnvironmental scienceSoil waterAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study focuses on three main groups of organisms: soil invertebrates, biological control agents (BCAs) and pollinators. These groups play key roles in agricultural systems, and have the potential to be used, moved or manipulated for the benefit of agriculture. Soil invertebrates are a key component of agricultural landscapes. They participate in essential soil processes that maintain healthy productive soils in the face of changing environmental conditions. Reducing the diversity of a community of soil invertebrates reduces its beneficial functions and services, with drastic ecological effects such as long-term deterioration of soil fertility and agricultural productive capacity. The introduction of a keystone species may have detrimental or beneficial effects depending on the context. The interaction between soil invertebrates and soil micro-organisms is critical: the activities of soil invertebrates regulate microbial activity in soils, and micro-organisms enter into intimate relationships with soil invertebrates to help them degrade highly complex compounds such as cellulose. Different groups of invertebrates provide biological control of crop pests. In many situations, they form the basis of, and tools for, the integrated pest management (IPM) approach. Given that the losses caused by pre- and post-harvest pests can be very substantial, the potential benefits of using invertebrates as BCAs are vast, but as yet only partially tapped. The potential for soil invertebrates to assist in this function is still largely unknown. Pollination services by animals, especially by insects, are among the most widespread and important processes that structure ecological communities in both natural and agricultural landscapes. An estimated 60-90% of the world's flowering plants - including a range of economically important species - depend on insects for pollination. Crop pollination used to be (and often still is) provided by wild pollinators spilling over from natural and semi-natural habitats close to crop fields. This service has generally been free and therefore has received little attention in agricultural management. If wild pollinators are lacking or additional pollination is required, as is the case in many intensive agricultural production systems, farmers in some developed countries can buy or rent managed honeybees or sometimes other species (e.g. bumblebees, alfalfa leafcutter bees and alkali bees). Both options - i.e. use of wild species and managed bees - have recently come under pressure, a development that is sometimes referred to as the 'pollination crisis'. Of the interactions and overlaps between these key groups, that between soil invertebrates and BCAs is the most important, and further research is needed to evaluate the scope and impact of manipulation of the soil ecosystem to conserve or encourage beneficial BCAs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI ReviewsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207