Effect of meadow regeneration on bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) abundance and diversity in southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To investigate how bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communities repopulate habitat following severe disturbances, we compared assemblages in new, regenerating landfill sites planted in 2003, recent landfill sites planted in 2000, and control meadows relatively undisturbed for >40 years. All sites were identically sampled using pan traps and sweep netting, from early May to late September 2003, equalising collection effort among sites. In addition, we carried out five-minute aerial net samplings wherever sites contained large patches of wildflowers. We predicted that abundance and diversity of bees would be highest in recent sites and lowest in new sites. This prediction was partially supported: bees were most abundant in recent sites followed by control, then new sites, but species richness was highest (82 species) in recent sites, followed by new sites (67 species), then control (66 species). A randomisation analysis showed that there were more species than expected in new sites and fewer than expected in control sites. Differences in blossom availability likely explain differences in bee abundance and diversity among habitat regeneration levels. Overall, our results suggest that the bee community recolonised newly available sites immediately in the first year and that bee diversity and abundance increased for at least three years, subsequently declining between three and 40 years.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".