A Lévy-flight diffusion model to predict transgenic pollen dispersal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The containment of genetically modified (GM) pollen is an issue of significant concern for many countries. For crops that are bee-pollinated, model predictions of outcrossing rates depend on the movement hypothesis used for the pollinators. Previous work studying pollen spread by honeybees, the most important pollinator worldwide, was based on the assumption that honeybee movement can be well approximated by Brownian motion. A number of recent studies, however, suggest that pollinating insects such as bees perform Lévy flights in their search for food. Such flight patterns yield much larger rates of spread, and so the Brownian motion assumption might significantly underestimate the risk associated with GM pollen outcrossing in conventional crops. In this work, we propose a mechanistic model for pollen dispersal in which the bees perform truncated Lévy flights. This assumption leads to a fractional-order diffusion model for pollen that can be tuned to model motion ranging from pure Brownian to pure Lévy. We parametrize our new model by taking the same pollen dispersal dataset used in Brownian motion modelling studies. By numerically solving the model equations, we show that the isolation distances required to keep outcrossing levels below a certain threshold are substantially increased by comparison with the original predictions, suggesting that isolation distances may need to be much larger than originally thought.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".