Air pollution disproportionately impairs beneficial invertebrates: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air pollution has the potential to disrupt ecologically- and economically-beneficial services provided by invertebrates, including pollination and natural pest regulation. To effectively predict and mitigate this disruption requires an understanding of how the impacts of air pollution vary between invertebrate groups. Here we conduct a global meta-analysis of 120 publications comparing the performance of different invertebrate functional groups in unpolluted and polluted atmospheres. We focus on the pollutants ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. We show that beneficial invertebrate performance is reduced by air pollution, whereas the performance of plant pest invertebrates is not significantly affected. Ozone pollution has the most detrimental impacts, and these occur at concentrations below national and international air quality standards. Changes in invertebrate performance are not dependent on air pollutant concentrations, indicating that even low levels of pollution are damaging. Predicted increases in tropospheric ozone could result in unintended consequences to global invertebrate populations and their valuable ecological services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".