MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414016465 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2025)857

Bee diversity in apple orchards of the Lower Himalaya: research synthesis, a new field study, and future needs

2025· article· en· W4414016465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Preeti S. Virkar, Ann M. Fraser, Aman Luthra, Ginger Allington, Shweta Rana, Renu Suyal, Ankita Rawat, Anmol Ratna, Kiran Cunningham, Narendra Raikwal, Anvita Pandey, Vishal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorge Washington UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDiversity (politics)BiologyField (mathematics)AgroforestryGeographyBotanySociologyMathematicsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In northern India and surrounding countries of the Lower Himalaya, apple is an important cash crop that contributes significantly to state economies and farmer livelihoods. Apple cultivation is shifting to higher elevations to counter declining fruit yields associated with climate change. Pollinator scarcity is another factor linked to declines in fruit yield and quality. To advance understanding of bee diversity and pollination ecology in apples for this region, we compiled a taxonomically updated list of bee taxa associated with apple orchards using records from existing literature and a new field study. Our list includes 25 bee genera, 75 named species, and numerous morphospecies. Common genera also feature prominently in apple studies elsewhere in the world. Apis cerana and A. mellifera were the most frequently reported visitors to apple flowers; Bombus, Ceratina, Lasioglossum, and Syrphidae flies were the most common non-Apis floral visitors. Bee species richness was inversely correlated with elevation and pollination deficit whereas bee abundance was not. Therefore, apples grown at higher elevations may experience more favourable growing conditions but also incur greater pollination deficits that are linked to reduced bee richness. This underscores the importance of conserving bee diversity to safeguard pollination services and farmer livelihoods in the region. Our literature review further highlights the need for more tools to identify the regional bee fauna, more thoroughly documented and standardised study methods to build capacity within the research community and aid comparative studies, and more expansive cataloguing and monitoring of pollinator communities to better understand the diversity, roles, and status of bees throughout this under-studied region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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