The costs and benefits of pollinator dependence: empirically based simulations predict raspberry fruit quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, agriculture increasingly depends on pollinators to produce many seed and fruit crops. However, what constitutes optimal pollination service for pollinator-dependent crops remains unanswered. We developed a simulation model to identify the optimal pollination service that maximizes fruit quality in crops. The model depicts the pollination (i.e., autonomous self-fertilization, pollen deposition) and post-pollination (i.e., pollen germination, and time from germination to ovule fertilization) processes leading to fruit and seed set and allows for negative flower-pollinator interactions, specifically pistil damage. We parameterized and validated the model based on empirical observations of commercial raspberry in western Argentina. To assess the effects of pollination intensity for fruit production, we conducted simulations over a range of visit number per flower by the two primary managed pollinators worldwide, Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris. Simulations identified that ~15-35 visits per flower by A. mellifera or ~10-20 visits by B. terrestris provide adequate pollination and maximize raspberry fruit quality (i.e., estimated as the proportion of ovules that develop into drupelets). Visits in excess of these optima reduce simulated fruit quality, and flowers receiving >670 honey bee visits or >470 bumble bee visits would produce fruits of poorer quality than those receiving no bee visits. The simulations generated consistent, unbiased predictions of fruit quality for 12 raspberry fields. This model could be adapted easily to other animal-pollinated crops and used to guide efficient pollinator management in any agro-ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".