Hoary Squash Bees (<i>Eucera pruinosa</i>: Hymenoptera: Apidae) Provide Abundant and Reliable Pollination Services to <i>Cucurbita</i> Crops in Ontario (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for insect-pollinated crops highlights the need for crop pollination paradigms that include all available pollinators. In North America, Cucurbita crops (pumpkin, squash) depend on both wild (solitary and Bombus spp.: Hymenoptera: Apidae) and managed honey bees (Apis mellifera L. 1758: Hymenoptera: Apidae) for pollination. Temporal and spatial differences in abundance may determine which bee taxa are the most important pollinators of Cucurbita crops. We surveyed bees visiting Cucurbita crop flowers on 19 farms over four years (2015-2018) during the crop flowering period (July 1-August 30 from 06:00-12:00). All the farms surveyed had hoary squash bees (Eucera pruinosa (Say, 1867), and most also had some combination of honey bees, bumble bees (Bombus spp.), or other wild bees present on their Cucurbita crop flowers. All four bee taxa were present on about two-thirds of farms. Spatially and temporally, wild bees were more abundant on Cucurbita crop flowers than managed honey bees. Hoary squash bees were the most abundant wild bees, maintaining their abundance relative to other wild bee taxa year-over-year. Male hoary squash bees were both more frequently and consistently seen visiting crop flowers than females in all years. Peak activity of hoary squash bees and bumble bees coincided with the daily crop pollination window, whereas peak activity of honey bees and other wild bees occurred after that window. In addition to elucidating the ecological interactions among wild and managed pollinators on Cucurbita crops, our work provides a novel practical way to evaluate pollinator abundance using a crop-centered benchmark framework.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".