Influence of flowering red clover on flower visitation in a sweet corn agroecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural intensification and the conversion of natural landscapes into annual cropping systems have contributed to declines in pollinator abundance and biodiversity. Increasing the abundance of flowering plants within crop fields is an often-overlooked practice that may be used to help sustain and enhance pollinator populations. In this study, the influence of red clover (Trifolium pratense) used as an interplanted living mulch on pollinator richness and visitation rates was evaluated and compared with monoculture sweet corn habitats. Treatments included sweet corn interplanted with red clover or monoculture with or without cover crop residue. Weekly visual observations of foraging floral visitors revealed that multiple species of bumblebees and butterflies, as well as honeybees frequently visited red clover flowers. Observations of visitors foraging on sweet corn tassels during pollen shed revealed distinct insect communities were attracted by sweet corn and red clover plants. Findings provided evidence that the inclusion of red clover in crop fields can increase the diversity and abundance of bees and butterflies on arable lands by serving as an important food source.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".