Pollination ecology of the invasive tree tobacco <i>Nicotiana glauca</i>: comparisons across native and non-native ranges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions with pollinators are thought to play a significant role in determining whether plant species become invasive, and ecologically generalised species are predicted to be more likely to invade than more specialised species. Using published and unpublished data we assessed the floral biology and pollination ecology of the South American native Nicotiana glauca (Solanaceae) which has become a significant invasive of semi-arid parts of the world. In regions where specialised bird pollinators are available, for example hummingbirds in California and sunbirds in South Africa and Israel, N. glauca interacts with these local pollinators and sets seed by both out-crossing and selfing. In areas where there are no such birds, such as the Canary Islands and Greece, abundant viable seed is set by selfing, facilitated by the shorter stigma-anther distance compared to plants in native populations. Surprisingly, in these areas without pollinating birds, the considerable nectar resources are only rarely exploited by other flower visitors such as bees or butterflies, either legitimately or by nectar robbing. We conclude that Nicotiana glauca is a successful invasive species outside of its native range, despite its functionally specialised hummingbird pollination system, because it has evolved to become more frequently self pollinating in areas where it is introduced. Its invasion success is not predictable from what is known of its interactions with pollinators in its home range.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".