Urban landscapes with more natural greenspace support higher pollinator diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As cities around the world expand, we urgently need to better understand the drivers of urban biodiversity, especially for functionally important groups such as insect pollinators. In this study, we gathered hoverfly and bumble bee pollinator observations from natural history collections and community science initiatives from 462 urban landscapes across 85 US metropolitan areas. We tested whether urban greenspace functions as pollinator habitat by examining whether the total area of greenspace in an urban landscape predicted pollinator occurrence, that is, the presence or absence of species in a landscape. Our study was designed to determine whether there were differences between natural greenspace area (i.e., urban greenbelts, nature reserves and forest/grassland fragments) and developed greenspace area (i.e., managed parks, cemeteries and golf courses) in their ability to support a diversity of pollinator species. After accounting for sampling biases using an integrated occupancy modeling approach, we found a positive association between native hoverfly occurrence and natural greenspace area. This implies that urban landscapes with more natural greenspace support higher native hoverfly diversity. On average, bumble bee occurrence was not associated with natural greenspace area; however, the response varied among species, with several at-risk bumble bees showing a positive association. In contrast to natural greenspace area, we found no association between pollinator occurrence and the area of developed greenspace. In addition, we found that the proportion of racial minority households in an urban landscape was negatively associated with pollinator occurrence. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a history of systematic, unjust policies in neighborhoods with more racial minority households has lasting negative impacts on urban biodiversity. In conclusion, our results support the hypothesis that natural greenspace functions as vital habitat for urban pollinators. We recommend that cities preservation of remnant natural greenspace and improve developed greenspaces in order to promote urban pollinator conservation. These efforts should be prioritized in urban landscapes with a higher proportion of racial minority households to improve equal access to nature and pollinator ecosystem 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".