At-risk and common bumble bees (Bombus spp.) forage differently in protected areas where they co-occur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bumble bees are important pollinators in wild and managed ecosystems. In recent decades, some species of bumble bees have declined globally, including across North America. Declines have been reported in certain species of bumble bees historically present in southern Ontario, including: Yellow bumble bee (B. fervidus) (Fabricus, 1798), American bumble bee (B. pensylvanicus) (DeGeer, 1773), and Yellow-banded bumble bee (B. terricola) (Kirby, 1837). Various threats contributing to bumble bee population declines include: land-use changes, habitat loss, climate change, pathogen spillover from managed bumble bee colonies, and pesticide use. A general response to the need for action on pollinator preservation in North America has been to encourage planting “bee-friendly” plants. Previous studies show differences in common and at-risk bumble bee foraging; however, similar data are unavailable for Ontario. Our main research questions are: 1. Is there a difference in at-risk and common bumble bee (Bombus spp.) floral use in protected areas in southern Ontario? 2. Do at-risk and common bumble bees exhibit differences in pollen and nectar collection? We hypothesize that common and at-risk species forage differently, predicting that at-risk species forage on a limited selection of host plants. The results of a redundancy analysis show a difference in foraging between common and at-risk bumblebee species. This would have implications for the planting of appropriate forage as a conservation strategy for at-risk bumble bees in Ontario.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".