Safeguarding pollinators requires specific habitat prescriptions and substantially more land area than suggested by current policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat loss and fragmentation are major drivers of global pollinator declines, yet even after recent unprecedented periods of anthropogenic land-use intensification the amount of habitat needed to support insect pollinators remains unknown. Here we use comprehensive pan trap bee survey datasets from Ontario, Canada, to determine which habitat types are needed and at what spatial scales to support wild bee communities. Safeguarding wild bee communities in a Canadian landscape requires 11.6-16.7% land-cover from a diverse range of habitats (~ 2.6-3.7 times current policy guidelines) to provide targeted habitat prescriptions for different functional guilds over a variety of spatial scales, irrespective of whether conservation aims are enhancing bee species richness or abundance. Sensitive and declining habitats, like tallgrass woodlands and wetlands, were important predictors of bee biodiversity. Conservation strategies that under-estimate the extent of habitat, spatial scale and specific habitat needs of functional guilds are unlikely to protect bee communities and the essential pollination services they provide to both crops and wild plants.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".