Global invasions of the western honeybee (<i>Apis mellifera</i>) and the consequences for biodiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:The western honeybee, Apis mellifera, has been globally transported for honey production and pollination for hundreds of years and is often kept in large numbers in beekeeping operations. Concern has been expressed that it might act as an invasive species with large impact on biodiversity. However, although the honeybee has spread into the wild and has established feral populations in Australia and the Americas, the extent to which introduced honeybees alter biodiversity remains controversial. Here we focus on the best documented cases of A. mellifera invasions and discuss the effects on biodiversity under three different conditions: 1) regions where other subspecies of A. mellifera are endemic (Europe, Africa, and western Asia), 2) regions where A. mellifera is not endemic, but other species of Apis naturally occur (central and eastern Asia), 3) regions where Apis species are not endemic (America, Australia). Although some studies show an impact on native bee survival, fecundity, or population density in response to large A. mellifera aggregations (e.g., on apiaries), there are no reports that feral honeybees caused the extinction of native bee pollinators, which are the most likely competing group of organisms. Honeybee introductions have had or still may have negative effects only within the genus Apis, primarily interfering with beekeeping activities. Although honeybee invasions seem to have had little if any effect on biodiversity of native pollinators so far, we nevertheless caution against transporting honeybees around the globe, and we particularly advise against importing foreign Apis species into tropical ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".