Foraging of Honeybees (Apis mellifera) on Flowers of Yellow Melon (Cucumis melo): Duration of Visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the pollinators’ foraging behaviour is quite important for pollination. Time spent by the pollinator in floral handling is one of the aspects of this behaviour. Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are the main responsible for the pollination of melon (Cucumis melo), but there are few studies on their foraging, mainly in the region of Petrolina, state of Pernambuco, and Juazeiro, state of Bahia, in Brazil. This study aimed to compare bee visitation to hermaphrodite (HF) and male (MF) flowers in a crop area where different number of hives were used. For each floral type, 10 flowers were observed, in each experiment (0, 1, 2 or 3 hives). The duration of bee visits (n = 10) was registered in three times of the day: 8 a.m., 11 a.m., and 4 p.m. In general, HF received significantly longer visits than MF, in all experiments, except when using one hive. In fact, significant correlations were found between the duration of visits and number of hives for HF, but not for MF. This is probably related to the attractiveness of HF and to the availability of floral resources. The studies of duration of pollinator’ visits are relevant in agriculture and should be considered when evaluating the efficiency of pollination in melon.
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".