Use of botanical gardens as arks for conserving pollinators and plant-pollinator interactions: A case study from the United States Northern Great Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botanical gardens have contributed to plant conservation through the maintenance of both living and preserved plant specimens for decades. However, there is still a large gap in the literature about the potential conservation value that botanical gardens could provide to local pollinators. We investigated how plant-pollinator interaction network structure and diversity may differ between botanical gardens and native habitats by sampling and comparing two environments: a restored native grassland patch within a local botanical garden and fifteen native, remnant temperate grassland sites in the Northern Great Plains. We found pollinator diversity within the restored botanical garden’s native grassland patch to be at the high end of the distribution of the remnant temperate grassland sites throughout the entire flowering season. However, plant diversity and network community metrics between the two environments remained similar throughout, except that remnant temperate grasslands have more links (higher connectance) with pollinators than the garden patch. Overall, our findings demonstrate the promising role restored native grassland patches in botanical gardens could play as reservoirs for local pollinator communities by supporting plant-pollinator interactions comparable to those found in native habitat remnants in the same region.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".