MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200554082 · doi:10.1002/ecy.3614

<scp>CropPol</scp>: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

2021· article· en· W4200554082 on OpenAlexaff
Alfonso Allen‐Perkins, Ainhoa Magrach, Matteo Dainese, Lucas A. Garibaldi, David Kleijn, Romina Rader, James R. Reilly, Rachael Winfree, Ola Lundin, C. M. McGrady, Claire Brittain, David J. Biddinger, Derek R. Artz, Elizabeth Elle, George D. Hoffman, Jamie Ellis, Jaret C. Daniels, Jason Gibbs, Joshua W. Campbell, Julia Brokaw, Julianna K. Wilson, Keith S. Mason, Kimiora L. Ward, K. B. Gundersen, Larry J. Gut, Logan Rowe, Natalie K. Boyle, Neal M. Williams, Neelendra K. Joshi, Nikki L. Rothwell, Robert L. Gillespie, Rufus Isaacs, Shelby J. Fleischer, Stephen Peterson, Sujaya Rao, Theresa L. Pitts‐Singer, Thijs P. M. Fijen, Virginie Boreux, Maj Rundlöf, Blandina Felipe Viana, Alexandra‐Maria Klein, Henrik G. Smith, Riccardo Bommarco, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Taylor H. Ricketts, Jaboury Ghazoul, Smitha Krishnan, Faye Benjamin, João Loureiro, Sílvia Castro, Nigel E. Raıne, G.A. de Groot, Finbarr G. Horgan, Juliana Hipólito, Guy Smagghe, Ivan Meeus, Maxime Eeraerts, Simon G. Potts, Claire Kremen, Daniel Garcı́a, Marcos Miñarro, David W. Crowder, Gideon Pisanty, Yael Mandelik, Nicolas J. Vereecken, Nicolas Leclercq, Timothy Weekers, Sandra Lindström, Dara A. Stanley, Carlos Zaragoza‐Trello, Charlie Nicholson, Jeroen Scheper, Carlos Rad, Evan A.N. Marks, Lucie Mota, Bryan N. Danforth, Mia Park, Antônio Diego M. Bezerra, Breno Magalhães Freitas, Rachel E. Mallinger, Fabiana Oliveira da Silva, Bryony K. Willcox, Davi de Lacerda Ramos, Felipe Deodato da Silva e Silva, Amparo Lázaro, David Alomar, Miguel A. González‐Estévez, Hisatomo Taki, Daniel P. Cariveau, Michael P. D. Garratt, Diego N. Nabaes Jodar, Rebecca Stewart, Daniel Ariza, Matti Pisman, Elinor M. Lichtenberg, Christof Schüepp, Félix Herzog, Martin H. Entling, Yoko Luise Dupont, Charles D. Michener, Gretchen C. Daily, Paul R. Ehrlich, Katherine L. W. Burns, Montserrat Vilà, Andrew Robson, Brad G. Howlett, Leah Blechschmidt, Frank Jauker, Franziska Schwarzbach, Maike Nesper, Tim Diekötter, Volkmar Wolters, Helena Castro, Hugo Gaspar, Brian A. Nault, Isabelle Badenhausser, Jessica D. Petersen, Teja Tscharntke, Vincent Bretagnolle, D. Susan Willis Chan, Natacha P. Chacoff, Georg K.S. Andersson, Shalene Jha, Jonathan F. Colville, Ruan Veldtman, Jeferson G. E. Coutinho, Felix J.J.A. Bianchi, Louis Sutter, Matthias Albrecht, Philippe Jeanneret, Yi Zou, Anne L. Averill, Agustín Sáez, Amber R. Sciligo, Carlos Vergara, Elias H. Bloom, Liesl Oeller, Ernesto I. Badano, Gregory M. Loeb, Heather Grab, Johan Ekroos, Vesna Gagić, Saul A. Cunningham, Jens Åström, Pablo Cavigliasso, Alejandro Trillo, Alice Claßen, Alice L. Mauchline, Ana Montero‐Castaño, Andrew Wilby, Ben A. Woodcock, C. Sheena Sidhu, Ingolf Steffan‐Dewenter, Ioannis Ν. Vogiatzakis, José M. Herrera, Mark Otieno, Mary Gikungu, Sarah Cusser, Thomas Nauß, L. Anders Nilsson, Jessica Knapp, Jorge J. Ortega‐Marcos, José A. González, Juliet L. Osborne, Rosalind Blanche, Rosalind F. Shaw, Violeta Hevia, Jane C. Stout, Anthony D. Arthur, Betina Blochtein, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Jin Li, Margaret M. Mayfield, Michał Woyciechowski, Patrícia Nunes‐Silva, Rosana Halinski, Steve Henry, Benno I. Simmons, Bo Dalsgaard, Katrine Hartung Hansen, Tuanjit Sritongchuay, Alison D. O'Reilly, Fermín J. Chamorro, Guiomar Nates Parra, Camila Magalhães Pigozzo, Ígnasi Bartomeus

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of GuelphSimon Fraser University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPollinationCropEcologyGeographyBiologyAgroforestryPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-2005 (21 studies), 2006-2010 (40), 2011-2015 (88), and 2016-2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207