MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612917612 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2017)four

Bee diversity and floral resources along a disturbance gradient in Kaya Muhaka Forest and surrounding farmlands of coastal Kenya

2017· article· en· W2612917612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Chiawo, C. K. P. O. Ogol, Esther Kioko, Verrah Otiende, Mary Gikungu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHalictidaeMegachilidaeSpecies richnessEcologyPollinatorBiologyBiodiversityHabitatPollinationAbundance (ecology)AgroforestryGeographyPollenApoideaHymenoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bees provide important pollination services that maintain native plant populations and ecosystem resilience, which is critical to the conservation of the rich and endemic biodiversity of Kaya forests along the Kenyan Coast. This study examined bee composition and floral resources from the forest core to the surrounding farmlands around Kaya Muhaka forest. In total, 755 individual bees, representing 41 species from three families were recorded: Apidae, Halictidae and Megachilidae. Overall, Apidae were the most abundant with a proportion of 76% of the total bee individuals, Halictidae at 14% and Megachilidae at 10%. Bee composition was similar between forest edge and crop fields as compared to forest core and fallow farmlands. We found a significant decrease in bee diversity with increasing distance from the forest to the surrounding farming area. A high abundance of bees was recorded in fallow farmland, which could be explained by the high abundance of floral resources in the habitat. We found floral resources richness to significantly affect bee species richness. These findings are important for understanding the effects of land use change on insect pollinators and their degree of resilience in disturbed habitats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207