MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959106855 · doi:10.7939/r3-e99j-0694

Are managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) altering native pollinator diversity, or their interactions with plants in Western Canadian grasslands?

2021· dissertation· en· W6959106855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorPollinationAbundance (ecology)Species richnessHoney beeIntroduced speciesGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grasslands region of southern Alberta, Canada, is dominated by agricultural activity, and approximately 75% of native grasslands have been lost to development. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) were introduced about a century ago, and today they are used to facilitate the pollination of crops; in one season, the region supports approximately 3.15 billion individuals. These super-generalists have been known in other places to compete with native pollinators, and may contribute to the decline of wild pollinator diversity and richness. Mounting evidence has also suggested that honey bees may alter the structure and function of plant-pollinator network interactions in a wild pollinator community, which may affect its resilience to perturbations and persistence into the future. This study examined the effects of honey bee abundance on native grassland pollinator communities by experimentally introducing honey bee hives to grasslands at the U. of A. Rangeland Research Institute’s Mattheis Research Ranch in southern Alberta, where pollinator abundance and diversity and plant-pollinator interactions over two summer seasons were sampled. Eighteen transects, at distances of 100 m, 500 m, and 5000 m from three clusters of honey bee hives, were established and floral insect visitors at each transect were sampled almost weekly. Flower species and flower visitors were then identified, and their interactions were compiled into plant-pollinator networks, from which species abundance, diversity, species composition, and network metrics related to network stability, structure, and resource use overlap, were analyzed. My findings indicate that honey bees did not affect wild pollinator abundance, richness, diversity, or species composition. Instead, flower species richness generally explained the variation in pollinator abundance, richness, and diversity. Additionally, honey bees impacted network structure by decreasing interaction evenness, and affected resource use overlap by increasing plant and pollinator functional complementarity. However, these network structural changes were due mostly to the added honey bee-plant interactions, and not to honey bees causing changes in how native pollinators interacted with plants. This study demonstrates that honey bees may not negatively impact native plant-pollinator communities in all contexts, and that, despite influencing interaction network structure and floral resource use, they may not affect the diversity of wild insect pollinators or their interactions with plants. Although caution should be used in generalizing these results in other regions, evidence suggests that honey bees are not a major threat to the wild pollinators in this area, at least in regard to changes to their diversity or interactions.

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)0.000
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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207