Space and Time Dynamics of Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.)-Melliferous Resource Interactions Within a Foraging Area: A Case Study in the Banja Luka Region (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between honeybees and the environment are often difficult to achieve, particularly when the purpose is to optimize beekeeping production. The present study proposed to monitor the space-time variations of melliferous resources potentially exploited by colonies within a foraging area in Bosnia & Herzegovina, characterized by contrasting landscapes. The combination of methods involving Geographical Information Systems, floristic monitoring, and modelling enabled honey production potential to be calculated for the entire foraging area. In particular, the location of taxa, their abundance, diversity, and phenology enabled us to determine the spatial distribution and temporal variation of production potential. Robinia pseudoacacia and Rubus sp. made a major contribution. This potential was highly contrasted, with distant areas from the apiary more attractive than closer ones, depending on the moment. Specific periods, such as June were particularly conducive to establishing a high potential. Forest and grassland played a major role in the temporal succession, mainly because of the area covered, but moments with lower potential were supported by specific land uses (orchards). Land uses with a small surface area, such as orchards, wasteland, and riparian zones had a high potential per unit area, and improving the production potential within a foraging area could involve increasing these specific surfaces.
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".