MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387575691 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14516

Synthesis of highbush blueberry pollination research reveals region‐specific differences in the contributions of honeybees and wild bees

2023· article· en· W4387575691 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Eeraerts, Lisa W. DeVetter, Péter Batáry, John J. Ternest, Rachel E. Mallinger, M. Arrington, Faye Benjamin, Brett R. Blaauw, Joshua W. Campbell, Pablo Cavigliasso, Jaret C. Daniels, G.A. de Groot, Jamie Ellis, Jason Gibbs, Lauren Goldstein, George D. Hoffman, David Kleijn, Andony Melathopoulos, Sharron Z. Miller, Ana Montero‐Castaño, Shiala M. Naranjo, Charlie Nicholson, Jackie Perkins, Sujaya Rao, Nigel E. Raıne, James R. Reilly, Taylor H. Ricketts, Emma Rogers, Rufus Isaacs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesRoyal SocietyNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeEntomological Society of AmericaNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalBelgian American Educational Foundation
KeywordsPollinationPollinatorBiologyHand-pollinationPollenOpen pollinationPollen sourceBumblebeeBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Highbush blueberry production has expanded worldwide in recent decades. To safeguard future yields, it is essential to understand if insect pollination is limiting current blueberry production and which insects contribute to pollination in different production regions. We present a systematic review including a set of meta‐analyses on insect‐mediated pollination in highbush blueberry. We summarize the geographic distribution of research, the abundance of different pollinator taxa and their relative pollination contributions. Using raw data from 21 studies, totalling 496 site replicates, we determine the degree of pollination service and pollen limitation (i.e. combining open pollination levels with experimental bagged and/or hand pollination treatments), as well as the contribution of honeybees and wild bees to pollination (i.e. observational, open pollination). Most studies originate from North America, focusing on only a few cultivars. Honeybees are the dominant pollinator, and wild bees are occasionally abundant. Wild bees are more efficient pollinators on a single‐visit basis compared to honeybees, which increases their relative pollination contribution compared to their relative abundance. Insect‐mediated pollination services increased blueberry fruit set, berry weight and seed set ( R 2 values: 64.8%, 75.9% and 75.2% respectively). We often detected pollen limitation, indicated by an increase in fruit set, berry weight and seed set ( R 2 : 10.1%, 18.2% and 21.5%, respectively), with additional hand pollination. Increasing visitation of honeybees and wild bees contributed to blueberry pollination by increasing fruit set ( R 2 : 5.4% and 3.5%), berry weight ( R 2 : 6.5% and 2.8%) and seed set ( R 2 : 6.4% and 3.8%) respectively. Bee contributions to fruit set and berry weight were variable across regions. Synthesis and application : A diverse community of insects, primarily bees, contributes to highbush blueberry pollination and yield. However, pollination deficits are common. The finding that both honeybees and wild bees enhance pollination highlights the possibility of adopting different management strategies that utilize honeybees, wild bees or both depending on the specific context and region. This further emphasizes the general importance of conserving pollinator health and diversity. Our synthesis highlights data gaps and areas for future research to better understand the pollination contribution of different pollinators to crops that are expanding globally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207