Pollinators utilize both traditional and forb-supplemented set-aside fields in agriculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agriculture relies on pollinators, yet paradoxically, agricultural practices can harm them, including through habitat simplification. The diversification of agricultural landscapes may support pollinators by providing varied foraging and habitat resources. Grassland set-asides are often established on farms to restore soils for crop productivity, and may have the co-benefit of providing resources for pollinators. Set-asides may also be supplemented with forbs for enhanced pollinator benefit, but few studies have investigated pollinator use of these fields compared to crop fields, and across set-aside management practices. Here, we use passive traps and net surveys to assess the flower-visiting insect community in three farm field types; traditional (grass-dominant) set-asides, forb-supplemented set-asides, and non-pollinator-dependent crop reference fields, to evaluate the potential for each to provide resources for pollinators. We found higher abundance of putative wild pollinators in forb-supplemented set-asides compared to crop fields, and higher species diversity in traditional set-asides compared to crop fields. Bumble bees were more abundant in both set-aside types compared to crops, while honey bees visited flowers in forb-supplemented sites the most. The diversity of wild pollinators and abundance of bumble bees in traditional set-asides occurred despite their lack of floral supplementation, suggesting that they may support pollinators by providing other resources (i.e., nesting or graminoid nutritional resources). We demonstrate that pollinators utilize both traditional and forb-supplemented grassland set-asides more than non-pollinator-dependent crop fields. Future studies to elucidate specific resource use by pollinators in set-asides across management types are needed. • We evaluated pollinator communities in grassland set-asides compared to crop fields. • Forb-supplemented set-asides had higher pollinator abundance than crop fields. • Traditional set-asides had higher pollinator diversity than crop fields. • Set-asides across two management types show potential to support pollinators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".