Willows (<i>Salix</i> spp.) as pollen and nectar sources for sustaining fruit and berry pollinating insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ostaff, D. P., Mosseler, A., Johns, R. C., Javorek, S., Klymko, J. and Ascher, J. S. 2015. Willows (Salix spp.) as pollen and nectar sources for sustaining fruit and berry pollinating insects. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 505–516. Willows (Salix spp.) are ubiquitous in the northern hemisphere, serving as an important pollen and nectar resource for insect pollinators and for the enhancement of insect-pollinated agricultural crops such as fruits and berries. We used a common-garden field test containing seven native North American willow species to assess attractiveness of male and female flower catkins by documenting visits of Andrena spp. (Apoidea: Anthophila), other wild bees (all native), and flower flies (Syrphidae). Most willows in Canada's Maritimes begin flowering very early in spring, as the first wild pollinators become active following winter, and stop flowering by mid-May. A later-flowering group normally begins flowering in mid-May and stops flowering by mid-June. Pollinator species were largely opportunistic, visiting whatever species of willow flowers were available during foraging, but Andrena dunningi appeared to prefer flowers of S. nigra and S. interior. There was a general preference for male flower catkins, with 72% of Andrena spp. and 82% of all flower flies collecting pollen and/or nectar from male flowers, because pollen is the major component of nest provisioning for most solitary bees and the major source of protein used to develop reproductive tissues in most flower flies. Most andrenids and flower flies were collected within the April–June flowering period of six of the seven willow species studied, indicating that these willows could be used to support the pollinator community before the flowering period of commercially valuable flower-pollinated crops such as lowbush blueberry, cranberry, and apple.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".