Fishing for flies: testing the efficacy of “stink stations” for promoting blow flies as pollinators in mango orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollinator communities are composed of diverse groups of insects, with radically different life histories and resource needs. Blow flies are known to visit a variety of economically important crop plants. Larval blow flies develop by feeding on decaying animals. Some fruit growers are known to place carrion on farms during the flowering season to attract adult blow flies (Calliphoridae). However, the efficacy of these “stink stations” has not been tested. We conducted a series of experiments to determine: 1) if stink stations promote the abundance of blow flies in mango orchards (Mangifera indica L.), 2) if any increases in the abundance of flies acts to promote pollination and fruit set in Australian mango orchards. Farms with stink stations had approximately three times more flies than control farms. However, the increased abundance of blow flies did not result in increased fruit set. Although stink stations increased the abundance of blow flies, we found no evidence that their use improves mango yield. This may be due to pollination saturation by a highly abundant native hover fly, Mesembrius bengalensis (Syrphidae), during our study. We hypothesize that stink stations may only be beneficial in years or regions where other pollinators are less abundant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".