One‐size does not fit all: at‐risk bumble bee habitat management requires species‐specific local and landscape considerations
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".