Foraging dynamics and pollination efficiency of <i>Apis mellifera</i> and <i>Xylocopa olivacea</i> on <i>Luffa aegyptiaca</i> Mill (Cucurbitaceae) in southern Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of different levels of pollination efficiency of pollinators, knowledge on appropriate pollinators of a plant has become important, especially in the management and conservation of both the pollinators and the plants. In this study, the pollination efficiency of Apis mellifera and Xylocopa olivacea, important pollinators of Luffa aegyptiaca, were assessed in the southern coastal part of Ghana from June 2009 to September 2010. Pollination efficiency of A. mellifera and X. olivacea was estimated in terms of fruit set and fruit size. Further, data on daily and seasonal nectar dynamics of Luffa aegyptiaca were collected. In the early mornings (0600-0700), X. olivacea was the most frequent visitor (0.47 min-1) on the female flowers compared to A. mellifera (0.13 min-1). The mean nectar (sugar) concentration in the dry season was 36.58 ± 0.55 %, which was higher than the 34.03 ± 0.38 % obtained for the rainy season (F = 14.986; df = 2; P < 0.0001). Total amount of sugar in the early mornings was 1.88 ± 0.37 mg which was higher than 0.28 ± 0.04 mg in the mid mornings (χ2 = 14.33, df = 1, P < 0.0001). Fruits that developed from flowers that had received a single visit from X. olivacea had a mean weight of 428.7g and were 1.5 times heavier than fruits from flowers visited by A. mellifera (286.76 g). X. olivacea was more efficient than A. mellifera in terms of number of fruit set per single visit. This study has provided some knowledge on pollination ecology of L. aegyptiaca, which can be exploited to improve fruit production in commercially grown vine crops.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".