The native snail shell–nesting bee<i>Osmia conjuncta</i>(Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) exploits a local abundance of exotic<i>Cepaea</i>snails (Stylommatophora: Helicidae), choosing empty shells by size, colour, and microhabitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For solitary bees, nesting substrate availability may limit population growth. Here, we investigate the nesting of a locally abundant beeOsmia conjunctaCresson (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in empty shells of exotic snails,Cepaeaspp. Held (Stylommatophora: Helicidae), in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. A literature review determined thatO. conjunctawas sparsely distributed throughout its range, with a low relative abundance except for the Niagara Region of Ontario, Canada, three sites in Maryland, United States of America, and the focal study area in Hamilton, Ontario. The Hamilton field survey of five grassland bee communities foundO. conjunctato be the most abundant bee species. The average relative abundance was 18.7%, peaking at 87% on one spring day. A survey of 1088 empty snail shells was done at the site with the highestO. conjunctaabundance. It revealed an average of 10.87 empty shells per square metre with cocoons in 9.8% of the shells, averaging 1.6 cocoons per nest. The relation between shell traits and cocoon presence indicated thatO. conjunctapreferred nesting in shells with intermediate size and colour and avoided shells near shrubs. The presence ofCepaeasnails increasedO. conjunctapopulations with potential consequences to the local bee assemblage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".