Syrphine hoverflies are effective pollinators of commercial strawberry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent declines in wild pollinators represent a significant threat to the sustained provision of pollination services. Insect pollinators are responsible for an estimated 45% of strawberry crop yields, which equates to a market value of approximately £99 million per year in the UK alone. As an aggregate flower with unconcealed nectaries, strawberries are attractive to a diverse array of flower-visiting insects. Syrphine hoverflies, which offer the added benefit of consuming aphids during their predatory larval stage, represent one such group of flower visitor, but the extent to which aphidophagous hoverflies are capable of pollinating strawberry flowers remains largely untested. In replicated cage experiments we tested the effectiveness of strawberry pollination by the aphidophagous hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus and Eupeodes latifasciatus, and a mix of four hoverfly taxa, when compared to hand pollination and insect pollinator exclusion. Hoverflies were released into cages, and the strawberry fruits that resulted from pollinated flowers were assessed for quality measures. Hoverfly visitation increased strawberry yields by over 70% and doubled the proportion of marketable fruit, highlighting the importance of hoverflies for strawberry pollination. A comparison between two hoverfly species showed that Eupeodes latifasciatus visits to flowers produced marketable fruit at nearly double the rate of Episyrphus balteatus, demonstrating that species may differ in their pollination efficacy even within a subfamily. Thus, this study offers compelling evidence that aphidophagous syrphine hoverflies are effective pollinators of commercial strawberry and, as such, may be capable of providing growers with the dual benefit of pollination and aphid control.
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) | 0.002 | 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".