Comparative Pollination Effectiveness Among Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on Lowbush Blueberry (Ericaceae: <I>Vaccinium angustifolium</I>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pollination effectiveness (floral visitation rate, percentage of flowers pollinated, and pollen deposition) of indigenous and introduced bees visiting lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton) was studied in Nova Scotia from 1992 to 1994. Floral visitation rate alone was not a good indicator of pollination effectiveness, as not all floral visits resulted in successful pollination events. As a group, pollen-harvesting taxa pollinated >85% of flowers visited as compared with under 25% for nectar foragers. Equivalencies derived from floral visitation rates and pollination percentages show that the most effective pollen-harvesters, Bombus spp. queens and Andrena spp., would pollinate 6.5 and 3.6 flowers, respectively, in the time it would take a nectar-foraging honey bee, Apis mellifera L., to pollinate a single flower. Average pollen deposition for nectar-foragers (A. mellifera and Megachile rotundata F.) did not exceed 13 tetrads per visit, which was significantly less than all pollen-harvesters. Among pollen-harvesters, Bombus spp. workers, M. rotundata and Halictus spp. deposited moderate stigmatic loads (34, 28, and 26 tetrads, respectively), whereas Bombus spp. queens and Andrena spp. deposited >45 tetrads per single visit. Pollination equivalencies show A. mellifera would have to visit a flower four times to deposit the same amount of pollen as single visits by Bombus spp. queens or Andrena spp.
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".