MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387937157 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2023)751

Sharing the wealth: pollen partitioning in a Cucurbita crop pollination system with reference to the wild hoary squash bee.

2023· article· en· W4387937157 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
S. K. Chan, Nigel E. Raıne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of GuelphMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsCanada First Research Excellence FundMinistry of Environment
KeywordsCucurbita pepoPollenPollinationBiologyPollinatorSquashCucurbitaCucurbita moschataBotanyGourdCropPollen sourceAgronomyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cucurbita pepo crops (pumpkin, squash) are entirely dependent upon insect pollinators for reproduction. In Ontario, Canada, their most important pollinator is the hoary squash bee (Eucera pruinosa), a wild ground-nesting, solitary bee whose only source of pollen in the region is Cucurbita crops. As such, in this context, we have a unique opportunity to study pollen partitioning in a cropping system in which a wild bee is the main pollinator. To evaluate pollen partitioning in the system, we measured pollen production by the crop, the pollen lost as waste due to the activities of bees in staminate flowers, pollen loads collected by female squash bees, and the number of pollen grains in fully provisioned hoary squash bee nest cells, and we compared these to the crop’s pollination requirements as reported in the literature. From the perspective of both plant and bee reproduction, about 13% of the pollen produced by staminate acorn squash flowers was wasted, but it may be harvested by other organisms like ants. After waste is accounted for, about 9% of the pollen left is needed for plant reproduction leaving the remaining 91% available for hoary squash bee reproduction. We also evaluated the mass of pollen a female hoary squash bee could carry in a single foraging trip relative to her own body mass (~4%). The information contained here is useful for understanding the relationship between a crop and an oligolectic wild bee species or to set up controlled, field realistic experiments involving the hoary squash bee.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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