One‐size does not fit all: at‐risk bumble bee habitat management requires species‐specific local and landscape considerations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Declining bumble bees are threatened by habitat loss, pathogens and climate change. Despite policy and management recommendations to create pollinator habitat, the habitat requirements for at‐risk bumble bees remains unclear. Most studies on bumble bee habitat are descriptive, focus on floral resources, occur at one spatial scale, or do not examine at‐risk species. We provide the first thorough habitat description for two North American bumblebee species ( Bombus terricola and Bombus pensylvanicus ) at‐risk of extinction. We asked the following questions: (i) What characterises B. terricola and B. pensylvanicus habitat? (ii) Are landscape variables, local variables, or flowering plant species more important determinants of habitat? (iii) do important variables change throughout the season? Surveys were conducted at 25 sites with a recent occurrence of either B. terricola , B. pensylvanicus , or both species across southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape variables were extracted from a 1‐km buffer around each site. Local variables related to bumble bee resource requirements (floral, nesting and overwintering) and flowering species cover were measured in spring, mid‐summer, and late‐summer. We found that the proportion of different land cover classes at 1 km was a more important predictor of B. terricola and B. pennsylvanicus presence than local transect based variables such as floral richness or the patchiness of floral cover. We did not find any evidence of important variables changing temporally, but floral resources were consistently important throughout the season. Our results highlight that management of at‐risk pollinator species requires consideration of species‐specific habitat requirements.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it