MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403101182 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v11i4.3045

Population Dynamics and Visit Timing of Insect Pollinator Families In Canola (Brassica Napus L.) Crops in Peshawar

2024· article· en· W4403101182 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fawad Khan, Samina Yasmin, Bahar Uddin, Sumbal Bibi, Sidra Hayat, Sumbal Nazeef, Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Tayab, Sana Faryal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBrassicaPollinatorInsectBiologyPopulationAgronomyPollinationBotanyPollenDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out in the Newly Developmental Farm (NDF) of the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, during 2019-20. Its purpose was to determine the population dynamics, visit timing, and activity patterns of insect pollinators of canola crop. The order recorded such as Diptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Coleoptera. Diptera was the most abundant, with eight species in the family. The Syrphidae family had seven hoverfly species recorded. The Hymenoptera order had Apidae with four species of bees. The findings of the study indicated that the most active and consistent pollinators throughout the study period were European honeybees (Apis mellifera) and European hoverflies (Eristalis tenax), putting their very importance in the pollination of the canola crop. The information acquired on the temporal foraging patterns of these pollinators was quite rich in weekly observations during both morning hours, that is, 10:00 AM -12:00 PM, and in the evening hours for 03:00 PM-05:00 PM. Evening sessions were by Apis mellifera while a total of 241 Syrphid flies, who recorded the most prolific evening session with a total of 201. Other notable contributors included in the study were the Marmalade hoverfly, which appeared high in population during morning periods, and the Blue Butterfly (Zizina otis) showed a peak activity in the evening. Other species, for instance, include the Common hoverfly Ischiodon scutellaris and Giant honey bee (Ischiodan scutellaris), which were characterized by stable populations, giving weight to the fact that hoverflies and bees are key pollinators of canola. The results suggest that an adequate abundance, as well as diversity of the pollinator community, are critical for high crop productivity. The work indicates that pollinators in canola fields have specific activity patterns and complex interactions, and therefore the study emphasizes the use of conservation strategies that would protect habitats for pollinators, support more sustainable agriculture practices, and increase biodiversity in canola fields.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207