Distinct pollinator communities persist among co-flowering specialty crops in Indiana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diverse bee communities pollinate fruits and vegetables, and the composition of these communities has been described for many specialty crops in major production regions. However, pollinator communities in landscapes dominated by agronomic crops may differ in species composition and the contribution of wild bees. With over 4 million ha of maize and soybean, Indiana presents a novel landscape to compare pollinator communities among specialty crops that differ in their use of managed bees and bloom phenology, with potential implications for the composition of wild bee communities and their contributions to flower visitation. We sampled pollinator communities with flower observations and pan traps in spring-blooming apples and blueberries and summer-blooming tomatoes and watermelons, allowing us to compare communities between specialty crops with overlapping and distinct bloom times. Apples, blueberries, and watermelons were stocked with honey bees, and watermelons additionally had managed bumble bees. Across two years of sampling, we observed 1,651 flower visits by 13 taxa, collected 1,967 bees, and identified 84 taxa from collected specimens. Apples and blueberries hosted the richest pollinator communities (34 and 51 taxa, respectively) followed by watermelons (22 taxa), and tomatoes (19 taxa). While 70% of flower visits in apples and blueberries were attributed to honey bees, wild bees accounted for 82% and 99% of flower visits in watermelons and tomatoes, respectively. Our results indicate that distinct pollinator communities persist among co-flowering specialty crops in a landscape dominated by maize and soybean production and underscore the contribution of wild bees for specialty crop pollination, particularly in watermelons and tomatoes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".