MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004358040 · doi:10.1007/s13592-019-00694-9

Dietary requirements of individual nectar foragers, and colony-level pollen and nectar consumption: a review to support pesticide exposure assessment for honey bees

2020· review· en· W3004358040 on OpenAlexaff
Sara I Rodney, John Purdy

Bibliographic record

VenueApidologie · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsIntrinsik (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarForagingForageBiologyPesticideHoney beePollenPollinatorToxicologyHoney BeesEcologyPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Exposure to pesticides is a potential concern for pollinators that may forage on plants containing residues. A key element of estimating dietary risk to pollinators is to determine the nature and amount of food consumed by individuals. Recent efforts have focused on honey bees ( Apis mellifera ), of which nectar foragers are thought to be at greatest risk of dietary exposure due to their foraging behavior and high energy requirements for the flight-foraging activities. At upper tiers of pesticide risk assessment for honey bees, field studies with whole colonies are carried out to gauge effects of expected exposures; however, without knowing how much nectar and pollen is being consumed by colonies and the potential variability in these parameters, it is difficult to accurately assess risk under other untested exposure scenarios. The objective of this review was to collate available data from the literature regarding (1) the quantity of nectar required by nectar foragers and (2) the quantities of nectar, pollen, and supplements that are consumed by colonies; the purposes being to develop a database that can be used to improve exposure and risk assessments, and to identify data gaps for further research. A number of studies investigating honey bee energetics have been identified that can be used to estimate sugar requirements for foragers under different conditions (e.g., resting, flying). A few more recent studies have been able to quantify the amount of time foragers spend outside the hive. Factors requiring further investigation include levels of energy expenditure while outside the hive, and the sugar content of available nectars, which may also affect foraging behavior. At the colony level, data on food consumption are sparse and primarily anecdotal. Colony size, management, and location seem to be major factors contributing to differences in nectar foraging and honey production. Further research is needed to better quantify and predict colony use and storage of food resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.444
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.052 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApidologieSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207