MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Climate influences broadly, landscape influences narrowly: Implications for agricultural beneficial insects

2025· article· en· W4408642476 on OpenAlexafffund
Abigail Cohen, Lincoln R. Best, James H. Devries, Jess Vickruck, Paul Galpern

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDucks Unlimited CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersManitoba Canola Growers AssociationAlberta Canola Producers CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaskatchewan Canola Development CommissionAlberta Conservation AssociationMitacsDucks Unlimited Canada
KeywordsAgricultureClimate changeEcologyGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insects provide critical ecosystem services, like pollination, in both natural and agricultural ecosystems. Delivery of these services depends on their ability to develop, survive, and move through their environment. Whether they can do this depends on the weather, climate, and landscape; but a changing climate means these systems are potentially vulnerable to disruption. Short-term fluctuations in weather can disrupt development, impede movement, and affect survival, while long-term climate norms influence environmental niches and influence species distribution. Landscape composition also influences beneficial insect distribution and has the potential to reduce the impacts of climate change. Here we use a database of >97,000 bee occurrence records, collected from 320 sampling sites across a 90,000+ km 2 area in the North American Prairies to generate models of species occurrence for 50 species, sampling in and around crop fields. We use a tree-based machine learning method with extreme gradient boosting to create predictive classification models. These models are then used to analyze the relative importance of weather, climate, and landscape variables. The variables with the highest mean absolute importance are cumulative degree days, cumulative precipitation, and percent tree cover. When we analyzed individual species models, bee taxonomic groups responded most strongly to weather, and the direction of response corresponded to trait-grouping. The responses to landscape were weak and species-specific. The results indicate that pollination service supply is largely determined by heat and moisture, and that cavity nesters and ground-nesters have opposite responses to rising temperature, which could impact taxonomic and functional diversity. • Occurrence of ecosystem service-providing insects depends on many abiotic factors • Machine learning can test importance of 42 climate, weather, and landscape factors • Responses are split between eusocial cavity-nesters and solitary ground-nesters • Warming and drying trends threaten the delivery of agricultural ecosystem services • Factors outside human management are more important at broad spatial scales to bees

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total Environment→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→