MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931838865 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7272836

Pollinating insects of some economically important plants of Kolhapur region, India

2022· article· en· W6931838865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinationPollinatorCropAgricultureBiodiversityInsectThrips

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The area of pollinator dependant crops is increasing disproportionately and crop pollinators are under threat of pesticides and other chemicals used in agriculture farming. Therefore, there is need to make the survey of pollinating insects from Kolhapur region of India since this area is agriculturally very sound which contain very rich biodiversity. A total of 30 species of pollinating insect belonging to the five orders viz. Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera have been reported. Maximum pollinating visits have been made by Apis dorsata and least by Chrysotoxum sp. on crop plants in the region. The order of dominant pollinator was Hymenptera> Lepidoptera> Diptera>Coleoptera>Thysanoptera. Keywords- Pollinating insects, Economic plants, Kolhapur, India. REFERENCES Aizen, M. A. and L. D. Harder. 2009. The global stock of domesticated honey bee is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Current Biol.; 19(11), 915-918. Allen –Wardell, G.; Bernhardt, P.; Bitner, et al. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology; 12 (11), 8-17. Ananthkrishnan, T. N. 1982. Thrips and pollination biology. Current Science; 51(4), 168-172. Ananthkrishnan, T. N. and Gopinathan. 1986. Insect pollinator-plant interactions, In: Dynamics of insect-plant interaction (Ed.) T. N. Ananthakrishnan, ERI, Loyola college, Madras. pp- 85-101. Annand, P. N. 1926. Thysanoptera and the Pollination of Flowers. The American Naturalist; 60(667), 177-182 Antram, C. B. 2002. Butterflies of India. A mittal publication New Delhi. Armstrong, J. A. 1979. Biotic pollination mechanism in the Australian flora-A review. N. Z. J. Bot., 17, 467-508. Burd, M. 1994. Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot. Rev.; 60, 81-109. Desai A.S., Khamkar A.G and T.V. Sathe. 2015. Ecology and Ethology of Crane fly Tipula paludosa Meigen (Tipulidae: Diptera) from Kolhapur region, India. Biolife. 3(1):21-25 Duara, P. 2014. Effectiveness and importance of butterflies as pollinator to the flowers of Lxora coccinea. Int. Nat. J. Res. Studies Biosci., 2(11), 71-74. Duara, P. and J. Kalita. 2014. Butterfly as pollinating insects of flowering plants. Global Journal of Science Frontier Reseach:C Biological Science, 4(1), 1-4. Faegri, K. and L. Vander Piji. 1979. The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon press, Oxford, 3rd ed. Gallai, N.; Salles, J. M. and B. E. Vaissiere. 2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 810-821. Ghosh, A. K. and D. Jana. 2013. Butterfly-philic plants in agro-forestry of West Bengal. Geobios; 40, 220-222. Hogendoorn, K., Cross, C. L. Sedgley, M. and M. A. Keller. 2006. Increased tomato yield through pollination by native Australian Amegilla chlorocynea (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). J. Econ. Ent.; 99(3), 828-833. Jothimani, K.; Ramchandran, V. S. and A. Rajendran. 2014. Role of butterflies as pollinator in Marathamalai Hills of South western Ghats. Academic Journal of Entomology, 7(1), 7-16. Kirk, W. D.J. 1988. Thrips and pollination biology, In: Dynamics of insect plant- interaction (Ed.) T. N. Ananthakrishnan and A. Raman. pp. 129-136. Klein, A.M., Vaissiere, B. E., J. H. Cane et al. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. Royal. Soc. (B), 274(1608), 303-313. Kunte, K. 2000. Butterflies of peninsular India. Universities press (Hydrabad) and Indian Academy of Sciences (Bengaluru). Morse, R. A. and N. W. Calderone. 2000. The value of honey bee as pollinator of US crops in 2000, Report- Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Omkar V. Yadav and S. R. Yankanchi. 2014. Preliminary study of herpetofaunal diversity in Radhanagari wildlife sanctuary (WLS), Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India. Biolife. 2(4):1154-1159 Patil, S. R., Patil, S. S., & Sathe, T. V. (2014). Preliminary Analysis of Diversity Status with Reference to Pisces from major wetlands of Aajara tahsil of Kolhapur district, Maharashtra, India. Biolife. 3(1),12-15. Pawara R. H, Patel N.G, Pawara J.V, Gavit, P.J and Ishi S.S. 2014. Beetles of Jalgaon district of Maharashtra, India. Biolife. 2(3):970-973 Sathe, T. V. 2001. Agrochemicals and pest management. Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 1-217. Sathe, T. V. 2006. Fundamentals of bee keeping. Daya Publ. House, New Delhi, pp 1-120. Sathe, T. V. and K. P. Shinde. 2006. Diversity of butterflies from Western Ghats (Kolhapur district). J. Nat. Con., 18(1), 181-184. Sathe, T. V., Anna Gophane and Nilam Shendage. 2015. Colour attractivity and occurrence of some cell sap sucking pests on crop plants. Biolife, 3(2), 540-546. Sharmah, D. Amrita, Khound, S. Rahman and P. Rajkumari. 2015. Significance of honey bee as a pollinator in improving horticultural crop productivity in N.E. region of India: A review. Asian Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 4(1), 62-67. Slaa, E. J., L. A.S. Chaves, K. S. Malagodi-Braga and F. E. Hofstede. 2006. Stingless bees in applied pollination: practice and perspectives. Apidologie, 37(2), 293-315. Sunita Devi, Rachana Gulati, Kanika Tehri and Asha. 2014. Diversity and abundance of insect pollinators on Allium sepa L. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 2(6), 34-38. Sushil, S. N., Stanley, J., N. K. Hedau and J. C. Bhatt. 2013. Enhancing seed production of trees Brassica vegitables by honey bee pollination in North-Western Himalayas of India. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(3), 49-53. Thien, L. B. 1980. Pattern of pollination in the primitive angiosperms. Biotropica, 12(1), 1-13. Winston, M. L. and C. D. Scott. 1984. The value of bee pollination to Canadian agriculture. Canadian Beekeeping, 11, 134. Wynter-Blyth, M. A. 1957. Butterflies of Indian region. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207