MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896933858 · doi:10.20381/ruor-22552

Temporal Synchrony between Ground-Nesting Bees and Spring Ephemerals in an Eastern Hardwood Forest Ecosystem

2018· dissertation· en· W2896933858 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sevenello Montagner

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNesting (process)HardwoodEcosystemEcologyGeographySpring (device)Ecosystem servicesAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceForestryBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in phenology due to climate warming could disrupt temporal overlap between interacting organisms when previously synchronized species respond to climate change at different rates. Phenologies of plants and insects are known to be sensitive to temperature and/or timing of snowmelt, with warmer temperatures and earlier snowmelt generally advancing spring flowering and emergence; however, some groups of pollinators, such as solitary bees, have been little explored in this context. One striking aspect of eastern hardwood forests is the emergence of understory wildflowers each spring, most of which rely, at least to some extent, on wild native pollinators for seed set. Without an understanding of the environmental drivers of phenology of these species, we have little ability to predict whether pollinators will continue to be well synchronized with flowering as the climate changes. In this study, I determined how spring temperatures and timing of snowmelt influence the phenology of spring wildflowers, activity of bees, and their temporal overlap in Gatineau Park, Québec. From 2013 to 2018, I characterized bee activity phenology and flowering phenology of understory plants in multiple study plots, focusing on early-flowering Anemone spp. and later-flowering Trillium grandiflorum. The sampled bee community was dominated by Andrena, Lasioglossum, and Nomada, all of which have similar activity periods. Degree-day accumulation was a better predictor of Anemone and Nomada phenology than were day of year or snowmelt date, whereas T. grandiflorum appeared to be more sensitive to photoperiodic cues; since day of year was the variable that best described its phenology. Activity periods of Andrena and Lasioglossum were equally well described by degree-day accumulation and by day of year. No taxon’s phenology was best predicted by snowmelt date. Despite these differences among taxa in the identities of the best predictors of phenology, bee activity and plant flowering phenologies responded at similar rates to interannual and among-site variation in snowmelt date and early spring temperature. Temporal overlap between flowering and bee activity was similar over the years of this study and was affected neither by snowmelt date nor by temperature. These results suggest that interacting plant and bee taxa may respond to different environmental variables but still maintain their synchrony under the conditions recorded so far.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207