Occurrence and effectiveness of native and managed pollinators for haskap, <i>Lonicera caerulea</i> Linnaeus (Caprifoliceae), in southern Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Haskap, Lonicera caerulea Linnaeus (Caprifoliceae), is an emerging crop in Nova Scotia, Canada, that relies on cross-pollination for fruit production. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed the activity of honey bees, Apis mellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in haskap orchards and compared this with native bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), while also documenting the early season wild bee community and potential of nesting boxes to support cavity-nesting bees. We found that haskap orchards in southern Nova Scotia support a diverse pollinator community. Andrena (Hymenoptera: Adrenidae) spp., A. mellifera, Bombus spp., and Lasioglossum spp. (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) comprised more than 75% of individuals captured in pan traps, but only A. mellifera and Bombus spp. were frequently observed on haskap blossoms. Honey bees and bumble bees deposited equal amounts of pollen on haskap stigmas, but bumble bees visited threefold more flowers per minute and visited both flowers of the haskap inflorescence more than twice as often as honey bees. Uptake of cavity-nesting bees into nesting boxes was relatively poor, and as many parasites (mostly Sapygidae) were collected from nesting boxes as bees. These results suggest honey bees and bumble bees are the best pollinators for haskap production in Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".