Linking pollinator occurrence in field margins to pollinator visitation to a mass-flowering crop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncultivated field margins are important refugia for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. However, the spill-over of pollination services from field margins to adjacent crops is poorly understood. This study (i) examined the effects of landscape heterogeneity on pollinator occurrence in permanent field margins and pollinator visitation to adjacent mass-flowering turnip rape (Brassica rapa ssp. oleifera) in boreal agricultural landscapes, and (ii) tested whether pollinator abundance and species richness in field margins predict abundance and species richness of crop visitors. Pollinators visiting the crop were more affected by landscape heterogeneity than pollinators in adjacent margins. Species richness, total abundance, and the abundance of syrphid flies visiting the crop increased with increasing landscape heterogeneity, whereas, in field margins, landscape heterogeneity had little effect on pollinators. In field-dominated homogeneous landscapes, wild pollinators rarely visited the crop even if they occurred in adjacent margins, whereas in heterogeneous landscapes, differences between the two habitats were smaller. Total pollinator abundance and species richness in field margins were poor predictors of pollinator visitation to adjacent crop. However, high abundances of honeybees and bumblebees in margins were related to high numbers of crop visitors from these taxa. Our results suggest that, while uncultivated field margins help pollinators persist in boreal agricultural landscapes, they do not always result in enhanced pollinator visitation to the adjacent crop. More studies quantifying pollination service delivery from semi-natural habitats to crops in different landscape settings will help develop management approaches to support crop pollination.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".