MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390733891 · doi:10.24124/2023/59444

Impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on the reproduction of forest understory plants and visitation by bumble bees (Bombus spp.)

2023· dissertation· en· W4390733891 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra R. Golt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateUnderstoryBiologyPollenAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many common broad-spectrum herbicides used in forestry operations to reduce the presence of unwanted, competitive plant species. As a result of aerial applications, non-target forest understory plants receive a sublethal dose of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and develop abnormalities such as changes in reproductive morphology. Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) of the shikimate pathway which produces the crucial aromatic amino acids for plant growth and other biochemical processes. There is very limited information on the long-term impacts of GBH on forest understory plant reproduction, fruit production, and vegetation production. Additionally, there are limited resources that discuss the impacts of GBH on the detection and visitation by bumble bees (Bombus spp.). The objectives of this research were to: 1) quantify glyphosate residues present in Chamaenerion angustifolium flowers and in samples of Bombus spp. found in areas treated with GBH; 2) quantify and compare stamen fluorescence of C. angustifolium (fireweed) flowers from GBH treated and untreated areas in operational forestry settings; 3) quantify the abundance and occurrence of different Bombus spp. in cutblocks one- and two-years post application compared to control sites; 4) quantify and compare the visitation of C. angustifolium by Bombus spp. in glyphosate-based herbicides treated and untreated plants; and 5) quantify and compare pollen viability, leaf-out, and fruit production in a variety of important food-producing forest plants in glyphosate-based herbicide treated and untreated sites in operational settings. I found that the amount of glyphosate residue present in floral tissues remained similar between one- and two-years post treatment. I also found that glyphosate-based herbicides have an impact on the fluorescence of male reproductive structures of forest understory plants. There was a reduction in the fluorescence emission of blue spectral wavelengths of anthers and pollen due to glyphosate-based herbicide treatment could lead to a reduction in detection and visitation by bumble bees as the blue photoreceptor in their compound eyes will be less likely to detect a flower for the bee to be drawn to it. Additionally, the increase in hue and saturation indicates that the presentation of the dominant wavelength present may no longer be the blue spectral wavelength. My findings indicate that glyphosate-based herbicides do not have an impact on the amount of time an individual bumble bee spends foraging on a flower. Glyphosate treatment influences floral characteristics related to bumble bee detection of flowers during foraging. This affects the number of bees present, but glyphosate-based herbicides do not impact how long an individual bumble bee visits a flower nor foraging effort once they are on a flower. The reduction in pollen viability seen in C. angustifolium one-year post-application is similar to pollen viability seen in control samples by year two after glyphosate-based herbicide applications, indicating that GBH initially have a large impact on pollen quality but there is a recovery in pollen quality in C. angustifolium over time. Lastly, my findings indicate that application of GBH resulted in a reduction of leafout and fruit production of multiple forest plants one-year post-glyphosate treatment. The reality is that GBH may have greater implications on the ecological roles of fruit-producing plants and for the availability of food for animals in forest cutblocks than was previously acknowledged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207