Commercial bumble bee (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>) hives under exclusion netting systems for apple pollination in orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exclusion netting systems are effective in various contexts and are increasingly used to control crop pests. However, factors affecting pollination management under nets are poorly known. The pollination effectiveness of commercial bumble bee hives of Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae) was studied for apple production under exclusion netting systems in a research orchard located in Quebec, Canada during 2016–2017. Sixteen single-row plots of apple trees (plot length: 18.5 m, cultivar GingerGold) were subjected to one of the following four treatments during bloom: (1) introduction of a bumble bee hive placed at the end of the row, under nets; (2) introduction of a bumble bee hive placed in the middle of the row, under nets; (3) negative control with no pollinators, under nets and (4) agronomic control with nearby bee hives (<50 m), without nets. Resulting post-harvest fruit quality (e.g., fruit weight, size, number and distribution of seeds) was evaluated, as well as correlations between bumble bee visitation rates and fruit quality parameters were evaluated. Results suggest that bumble bees provided adequate pollination under exclusion netting systems and that resulting fruit quality was equivalent to that of apple fruit conventionally pollinated by honey bees and wild bees community (bumble bees and other bees) in the orchard environment. Positioning bumble bee hives in the middle of the row provided better fruit load homogeneity in pollinated trees. Additional discussion on bumble bees as apple pollinators and on pollen distribution methods is also included.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".