MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948036159 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13456

Habitat enhancements rescue bee body size from the negative effects of landscape simplification

2019· article· en· W2948036159 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Grab, Julia Brokaw, Elisabeth Anderson, Lauren Gedlinske, Jason Gibbs, Julianna K. Wilson, Gregory M. Loeb, Rufus Isaacs, Katja Poveda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsForagingHabitatEcologyBiologyOptimal foraging theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The negative effects of landscape simplification on bee communities are well documented. To reverse these effects, flowering habitat enhancements are designed to provide supplemental nutritional resources for wild bees and are particularly important when few resources are available in the surrounding landscape. Yet, it is not known whether or how habitat enhancements support bee populations under varying landscape contexts. Body size is a morphological trait that is strongly linked to foraging ability, immune function, and fitness in bees. Landscape simplification has been associated with size declines across bee taxa and smaller body size can be an early indicator of environmental stress. To determine whether the negative effects of landscape simplification on body size can be improved by adding floral resources to farm landscapes, we measured the body size of 10 wild bee species collected at 70 sites with or without habitat enhancements in Michigan and New York. Bees were collected at sites with varying amounts of agriculture in the surrounding landscape, allowing us to test whether morphological responses to enhancements are affected by landscape simplification. Half of the bee species measured exhibited declining body size across the landscape gradient. Among these species, declines were buffered by the presence of habitat enhancements suggesting this response is the result of improved nutrition, reduced need for long‐distance foraging, enhanced recruitment of larger individuals or a combination of these mechanisms. Declines in body size were strongest in both the smallest and the largest species. Large and medium sized species exhibited the greatest response to flowering habitat enhancements. Synthesis and applications. At sites with high agricultural cover, we observed intraspecific body size declines among many species; however, we did not observe decreased body size in any species at sites with a flowering habitat enhancement. Therefore, our findings suggest that the presence of flowering habitat enhancements can support wild bees experiencing stress from intensively managed agricultural landscapes across multiple cropping systems and regions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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