Wild bees show local spatial and temporal dynamics in southeastern US blueberry farmscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild bee communities are the target of various conservation and ecological restoration programs. Strategic conservation can influence bee communities visiting fields and help mitigate pollinator limitations in fruit production. However, planning compatible conservation strategies and gauging their effectiveness requires understanding how local communities vary across space and time in crops and adjacent semi-natural areas. Here, we assessed the spatiotemporal changes in the composition of wild bee communities in blueberry fields and adjacent forests. In partnership with commercial farms in southeast Georgia, USA, we deployed blue vane traps at the interior and edge of blueberry fields and within adjacent forests of 8 fields, from March to October over 2 yr. We identified 72 wild bee species across 26 genera. The most common were Melissodes communis (Cresson, Hymenoptera: Apidae), Bombus bimaculatus (Cresson, Apidae), Melissodes bimaculatus (Lepeletier), Ceratina floridana (Mitchell, Apidae), Lasioglossum pectorale (Smith, Halictidae), and Lasioglossum nymphale (Smith), which accounted for nearly 60% of the wild bees caught. Bee diversity and richness fluctuated over time, with peaks in all 3 habitat types occurring after the blueberry blooming. Bee abundance in the adjacent forest was relatively constant throughout the season, while in the field interior and edge assemblages, abundance peaked between May and June. We observed dissimilarity in species composition related to month and field location. This difference was explained by fluctuation in the identity and relative abundance of the most abundant species. Together, our study advances foundational knowledge of wild bee community dynamics and species identity in blueberry fields which will help inform and prioritize conservation practices.
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".