MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413766836 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.70155

Global synthesis of apple pollination research highlights general pollen limitation and positive contributions of wild bees compared to honeybees

2025· article· en· W4413766836 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Eeraerts, Julia Osterman, Péter Batáry, Alexandra‐Maria Klein, Matthias Albrecht, Georg K.S. Andersson, Andràs Báldí, Olivia M. Bernauer, Leah Blechschmidt, Eleanor J. Blitzer, Paulo A. V. Borges, Jordi Bosch, Katherine L. W. Burns, Alistair J. Campbell, Sílvia Castro, James M. Cook, Robin Daelemans, Bryan N. Danforth, G.A. de Groot, Kinley Dorji, Rita Földesi, Hannah R. Gaines‐Day, Daniel Garcı́a, Lucas A. Garibaldi, Michael P. D. Garratt, Andrew Gonzalez, Heather Grab, Claudio Gratton, Maren Kristine Halvorsen, Peter A. Hambäck, Bjørn Arild Hatteland, Olivier Honnay, Eva Hulsmans, Sandra Kaasen Vestheim, David Kleijn, Anikó Kovács‐Hostyánszki, Martin J. Lechowicz, Nicolas Leclercq, Yunhui Liu, João Loureiro, Rachel E. Mallinger, Leon Marshall, Ivan Meeus, Marcos Miñarro, Diego N. Nabaes Jodar, Adara Pardo, Mia Park, Robert J. Paxton, Néstor Pérez‐Méndez, Rafael Carvalho, Paavo Pirttilehto, Matti Pisman, Simon G. Potts, Nigel E. Raıne, James R. Reilly, Laura Roquer‐Beni, Ulrika Samnegård, Dara A. Stanley, Louis Sutter, Kyle Teixeira‐Martins, Simon M. Tierney, Ruan Veldtman, Nicolas J. Vereecken, Felix Wäckers, Timothy Weekers, Julianna K. Wilson, Panlong Wu, Kris Verheyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCarl Tryggers Stiftelse för Vetenskaplig ForskningNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsPollinationPollenBiologyHoney BeesBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Apple is one of the most important pollinator‐dependent fruit crops worldwide. To secure high‐quality yields, it is crucial to know which, and to what extent, pollinating insects contribute to its pollination success as measured by fruit set, fruit weight and seed set. We perform a meta‐analysis of field studies conducted across multiple orchards on insect‐mediated pollination in apple cultivation, using raw data from 29 studies, totalling 532 orchard replicates. We assessed the extent of pollen limitation on different pollination outcomes and assessed the contribution of honeybees, wild bees and bee species richness to apple pollination. Across all studies, we detected strong evidence of pollen limitation for fruit set and seed set, but not for fruit weight. Honeybees were the most abundant flower visitors (average relative visitation of 71.9%) compared to wild bees; but when correcting for their pollination efficiency, the relative pollination contribution of honeybees was lower compared to their relative visitation (vice versa for solitary bees). We conclude that honeybee visitation rate did not influence fruit or seed set; yet increasing honeybee visitation had a small, negative effect on fruit weight. Fruit set was not influenced by wild bee visitation rate, whereas wild bee visitation had a small, but clear positive effect on fruit weight and seed set. Bee species richness had a small, positive effect on seed set; whereas it did not affect fruit set and fruit weight. Syntheses and applications. Our study highlights that pollen limitation is common in this global crop. While managed honeybees are dominant pollinators, a diverse community of wild bees contributes significantly to apple pollination and high‐quality yield. The positive effect of wild bees and species richness on fruit weight and seed set demonstrates that wild bee pollination results in better‐quality fruit production (increased weight & seed set). Therefore, our synthesis highlights the importance of conserving pollinator diversity to maintain pollination services. The absence of a clear effect of honeybee visitation rate on fruit and seed set, coupled with its negative impact on fruit weight, suggests a need for further optimisation of honeybee management to improve the cost‐efficiency of pollination management.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207