Native bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinators vary in floral resource use across an invasion gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Integration of pollinator-dependent invasive plants into native pollination networks can have direct and indirect effects on local plant and pollinator communities. Impacts on local plants are well documented; however effects on native pollinators have gained less attention. We examine these issues in habitat fragments of the endangered oak-savannah ecosystem in British Columbia, Canada. We measured pollen collection by native bumble bees ( Bombus Latreille; Hymenoptera: Apidae) and the introduced honey bee ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus; Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging on two common native plants in habitat fragments with varying invasive ( Cytisus scoparius (Linnaeus) Link; Fabaceae) density. The Bombus species with the largest workers had higher proportions of invasive pollen on their bodies and in their corbiculae than smaller workers. Honey bees rarely collected C. scoparius pollen. While some native bumble bees species collect an increasing proportion of C. scoparius pollen with increasing C. scoparius density, this did not translate into an increased potential for pollination. Rather, measures of effective pollination decline with C. scoparius density. Overall, our results suggest that some bee species may be better at finding resources at highly invaded sites. Apis mellifera is likely not playing a major role in facilitating the spread of C. scoparius in our region. Rather C. scoparius is visited by a complement of native bumble bees that are similar to pollinators in the native range of this plant.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".