Relationships between parasitism, bumblebee foraging behaviour, and pollination service to <i> <scp>T</scp> rifolium pratense </i> flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Parasite effects on host behaviour frequently alter their hosts' trophic interactions. There are many compelling examples of such effects in herbivore‐based trophic interactions, but less attention has been paid to how parasite effects on host behaviour can alter mutualistic interactions. 2. Pollination mutualisms depend greatly on pollinator behaviour, and many pollinators are attacked by a wide range of parasites and parasitoids. 3. To investigate whether parasites affect pollination service via changes in host behaviour, natural variation in conopid fly parasitism was used to investigate the relationship between infection and Bombus impatiens Cresson behaviour foraging on arrays of Trifolium pretense L. flowers in the laboratory. The consequences of infection for seed set and seed mass were also examined. 4. Conopid parasitism was not related to any measured behavioural response; however, flowers visited by conopid‐parasitised bees set significantly heavier seeds than those visited by unparasitised bees. Larger bees were more likely to be parasitised, but the relationship between parasitism and seed set still held after accounting for body size. 5. The present results demonstrate that parasitoids may have positive impacts on per‐visit pollination, but, because larger bees were more frequently parasitised, parasitism could also affect pollination by removing the largest pollinators from the population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".