Effect of Bumble Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Pollination Intensity on the Quality of Greenhouse Tomatoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory studies were conducted to assess tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (Solanaceae), quality in relation to the level of buzz-pollination by bumble bees. Studies were conducted in commercial tomato greenhouses in the Leamington, Ontario, area to categorize bruising of tomato anther cones by bumble bees into five levels of bruising. The number of pollen grains per stigma was determined for each bruising level, and the bruising level was found to be a good predictor of stigmatic pollen load. Experimental flowers were pollinated by bumble bees and assigned to bruising levels based on the degree of anther cone discoloration. Fruit set, tomato weight, minimum diameter, the number of days until ripe, roundness, weight, percentage sugars, and number of seeds were assessed and compared among bruising level. Fruit set in flowers receiving no pollination visits was 30.2%, whereas, 83.3, 84.4, 81.2, and 100% of the flowers set fruit in bruising levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Minimum diameter, number of seeds, and tomato weight all increased from no bruising to different levels of bruising. There was no increase in weight or diameter above a bruising level of 1, and no increase in the number of seeds per fruit after a bruising level of 2. We found that pollination of tomato flowers greater than a bruising level of 2 (corresponding to approximately one to two bee visits) did not result in a significant increase in quality.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".