Asymmetric responses by bees and aculeate wasps to dune stabilisation across the southern Canadian prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inland sand dunes in the Great Plains of North America provide refuge for a variety of psammophilous (i.e., sand‐loving) organisms but are threatened by vegetative stabilisation. In a cross‐sectional study, we analysed the effects of dune stabilisation on wild bees and stinging wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata)—which comprise some of the most diverse assemblages of dune‐dwelling arthropods—at 13 sites across the southern Canadian prairies. We did not detect changes in overall taxonomic richness with increased stabilisation, with comparable numbers of bee and aculeate wasp species/morphospecies observed among dunes at different stages of stabilisation. However, abundances of species of wasps identified as dune specialists decreased with increased stabilisation. Bees and aculeate wasps responded nonlinearly to the percent of plant cover on dunes dominated by grasses (Poales: Poaceae), whereas abundance and richness were generally high on dunes where the dominant plant was dune scurfpea (Fabales: Fabaceae). Thus, the extent to which these plants cover a particular dune can be indicative of the numbers of individuals and types of aculeate species it can sustain. Overall, differences in aculeate community composition between dune sites were better explained by proximity of sites to one another than stabilisation level, reflecting the large spatial scale at which the dunes were surveyed (i.e., within a 50,350 km 2 area). Bees and aculeate wasps, especially open sand specialist species, serve as a promising tool for monitoring the effects of dune stabilisation. This study provides a crucial reference point and methodology for future assessments of dune‐inhabiting aculeates in these unique inland dune systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".