Pollinator Evolution in Response to Agricultural Practices: Insights from Bee Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes how modern agricultural practices drive adaptive evolution of honey bee populations in terms of genomic detoxification ability, foraging behavior, and population genetic structure. The study found that long-term pesticide exposure may prompt honey bees to evolve detoxification gene mutations to improve survival, while crop monoculture forces honey bees to adjust their foraging strategies or behavioral rhythms to cope with the nutritional pressure brought about by resource homogeneity. Large-scale landscape changes and habitat fragmentation reduce the genetic diversity of honey bees and aggravate local population isolation. In addition, pathogen spillover and genetic disturbance caused by commercial beekeeping activities also have a negative impact on wild bees. To mitigate the adverse effects of agricultural practices on honey bee evolution, this study discusses strategies such as reducing pesticide use, enriching farmland landscape diversity, and promoting diversified agricultural systems. It also looks forward to future research directions, including the use of genomics technology to monitor honey bee adaptive changes and the importance of integrating pollinator protection concepts in agricultural management. This study aims to deepen the understanding of the evolutionary adaptation of honey bee populations in agricultural ecosystems and provide a reference for the formulation of pollinator protection and sustainable agricultural management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".