Pollinator responses to farmland habitat features: one-size does not fit all
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, pollinating insects face significant pressure, largely due to intensively managed agricultural systems. There has been considerable focus on the provision of resources for pollinators in agricultural landscapes, but without understanding how existing farmland habitats affect pollinators there is a risk these conservation actions could fail. The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between the quantity, diversity, and quality of on-farm habitats with pollinator communities. To meet this aim, pollinator, floral and habitat features were assessed at twenty-nine sites, encompassing both livestock and crop systems, at a range of farming intensities, in two regions of Ireland. Results showed that the three main taxonomic pollinator groups (hoverflies, social bees, and solitary bees) were inconsistent in their responses to habitat and environmental variables. Hoverflies were negatively associated with farms with increasing amounts of linear feature and fewer drainage ditches, whereas bumblebees were positively associated with crop farms and the number of grassy margins, drainage ditches and hedgerows at a site. Solitary bees were negatively associated with crop farms and positively associated with high floral species richness. At a species level, community analysis showed that within taxonomic groups, individual species responded differently to environmental variables. This study demonstrates that different farm types and habitat features impact pollinator groups differently. One-size does not fit all, thus on-farm conservation actions should be designed with knowledge of taxon-specific responses to maximise benefits. The quantity and diversity of essential habitats are important along with the quality of those features in terms of their capacity to provide sufficient resources for pollinators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".