Experimental pollinator decline affects plant reproduction and is mediated by plant mating system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing concern that current pollinator decline will affect the reproduction of plant species, potentially driving a decline in plant population densities. We experimentally tested whether a reduction in flower visitation caused a reduction in fertilization rate in several species, and whether any reduction in fecundity of species depends on their degree of reproductive dependence on pollinators and their attractiveness for pollinators. We recorded visitation rate, fertilization rate, seed weight, flower size and density of nineteen insect-pollinated perennial herbs inside thirty 2 x 2 m dome-shaped cages covered with fishnet (experimental plots) and in thirty control plots in a Norwegian hay meadow. We used a bagging experiment to estimate the ability of the study species to produce seeds in the absence of pollinators. The visitation rate for fifteen of nineteen study species was lower inside cages than outside and only three of the fifteen species showed significantly reduced fertilization rates in the experimental plots. The magnitude of reduction in fertilization rate was positively related to the degree of pollinator dependence, but not to their attractiveness for pollinators or to the reduction in visitation rate. Seed weight was not affected by the experiment. The lack of an overall effect of reduced pollinator visitation on fertilization rate suggests that some species may be robust to a pollinator decline that could increase pollen limitation on plant reproduction. Our results suggest that species with greater pollinator dependence are more vulnerable to pollinator loss.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".