MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387335705 · doi:10.5194/we-23-99-2023

Pollination supply models from a local to global scale

2023· article· en· W4387335705 on OpenAlexafffund
Á. Giménez-García, Alfonso Allen‐Perkins, Ígnasi Bartomeus, Stefano Balbi, Jessica Knapp, Violeta Hevia, Ben A. Woodcock, Guy Smagghe, Marcos Miñarro, Maxime Eeraerts, Jonathan F. Colville, Juliana Hipólito, Pablo Cavigliasso, Guiomar Nates‐Parra, José M. Herrera, Sarah Cusser, Benno I. Simmons, Volkmar Wolters, Shalene Jha, Breno Magalhães Freitas, Finbarr G. Horgan, Derek R. Artz, C. Sheena Sidhu, Mark Otieno, Virginie Boreux, David J. Biddinger, Alexandra‐Maria Klein, Neelendra K. Joshi, Rebecca Stewart, Matthias Albrecht, Charlie Nicholson, Alison D. O'Reilly, David W. Crowder, Katherine L. W. Burns, Diego N. Nabaes Jodar, Lucas A. Garibaldi, Louis Sutter, Yoko Luise Dupont, Bo Dalsgaard, Jeferson Gabriel da Encarnação Coutinho, Amparo Lázaro, Georg K.S. Andersson, Nigel E. Raıne, Smitha Krishnan, Matteo Dainese, Wopke van der Werf, Henrik G. Smith, Ainhoa Magrach

Bibliographic record

VenueWeb Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónRoyal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851Environmental Protection AgencyConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinisterio de UniversidadesFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekU.S. Department of AgricultureIrish Research CouncilEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichComunidad de MadridStiftung Mercator SchweizSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsScience Foundation IrelandEva Crane TrustEuropean CommissionBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentCanada First Research Excellence FundDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungWeston Family FoundationDepartment of Agriculture, PhilippinesState Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania
KeywordsScale (ratio)PollinationFood supplyEcologyGeographyBiologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceCartographyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Ecological intensification has been embraced with great interest by the academic sector but is still rarely taken up by farmers because monitoring the state of different ecological functions is not straightforward. Modelling tools can represent a more accessible alternative of measuring ecological functions, which could help promote their use amongst farmers and other decision-makers. In the case of crop pollination, modelling has traditionally followed either a mechanistic or a data-driven approach. Mechanistic models simulate the habitat preferences and foraging behaviour of pollinators, while data-driven models associate georeferenced variables with real observations. Here, we test these two approaches to predict pollination supply and validate these predictions using data from a newly released global dataset on pollinator visitation rates to different crops. We use one of the most extensively used models for the mechanistic approach, while for the data-driven approach, we select from among a comprehensive set of state-of-the-art machine-learning models. Moreover, we explore a mixed approach, where data-derived inputs, rather than expert assessment, inform the mechanistic model. We find that, at a global scale, machine-learning models work best, offering a rank correlation coefficient between predictions and observations of pollinator visitation rates of 0.56. In turn, the mechanistic model works moderately well at a global scale for wild bees other than bumblebees. Biomes characterized by temperate or Mediterranean forests show a better agreement between mechanistic model predictions and observations, probably due to more comprehensive ecological knowledge and therefore better parameterization of input variables for these biomes. This study highlights the challenges of transferring input variables across multiple biomes, as expected given the different composition of species in different biomes. Our results provide clear guidance on which pollination supply models perform best at different spatial scales – the first step towards bridging the stakeholder–academia gap in modelling ecosystem service delivery under ecological intensification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeb EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207