Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) activity and loss in commercial tomato greenhouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Activity of bumble bees,Bombus impatiensCresson, was examined in commercial tomato,Lycopersicon esculentumMill. (Solanaceae), greenhouses in relation to greenhouse covering type, solar radiation, greenhouse temperature and humidity. Bumble bee activity was measured by photodiode monitors inserted into the entrance of the colonies. Colony sizes were monitored as an indicator of bee loss through gutter ventilation systems in relation to covering. Activity monitors were found to be a good predictor of actual bumble bee entrances and exits (r2= 0.85). Bumble bee activity was 94.0% greater under the ultravioltet (UV)-transmitting covering than under ones that transmitted less UV light. No relationship was found between bee activity and the amount of solar radiation or internal greenhouse humidity. Bee activity was weakly positively correlated with internal greenhouse temperature (r2= 0.18). Bee activity was not different during three periods of the day: morning, midday, and evening. The mean ± SE colony size under the UV-transmitting covering was 86.0 ± 2 bees per colony after 10 days within the greenhouses, compared with 36.4 ± 5.8 bees per colony under the other three types of covering. Our results suggest that bee activity is greatest and bee loss through gutter ventilation systems lowest in greenhouses made with coverings that transmit high levels of UV light.
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".