Honey bee pollen foraging in relation to flowering phenology of biennial caraway (<i>Carum carvi</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biennial caraway (Carum carvi L.) is a specialty spice crop in Saskatchewan, yet little was known about fundamental agronomic traits, such as its flowering phenology, plant density, attraction to potential pollinators, and prospective honey yield. At five commercial fields in 1998 and 1999, biennial caraway flowered for 7 wk, beginning in late May or early June and finishing by early to mid-July. Under optimal conditions, and assuming intense foraging activity by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.), caraway might yield 70–134 kg honey ha–1. However, weights of colonies near fields of caraway (0.47–4.2 hives ha–1) changed little while honey bees were predominant foragers on that crop. Then, in the second half of the caraway flowering period, when honey bees had almost deserted those fields as indicated by observation and pollen-trap analyses, hive weights rose steadily due to a switch to nearby crops of canola (Brassica spp.) and sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), which had begun to flower. Whereas biennial caraway is rated as negligible to only moderate for its honey potential in Saskatchewan, 83% of honey bees visiting caraway florets gathered pollen. Moreover, caraway pollen entering hives averaged 11% of total pollen (dry weight) over the entire flowering period of the crop, but 36.5% during the first half of flowering phenology, suggesting that biennial caraway may constitute a valuable source of protein for honey bees, particularly during colony build-up in spring. Key words: Caraway (Carum carvi), flowering phenology, hive weights, honey bee foraging, honey potential, pollen-trap collection
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".