The bumblebee <i>Bombus hortorum</i> is the main pollinating visitor to <i>Digitalis purpurea</i> (Common Foxglove) in a U.K. population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialization in plant-pollinator systems represents an important issue for both the ecological understanding and conservation of these systems. We investigated the extent to which the bumblebee Bombus hortorum (Linnaeus) is the main potential pollinator of Common Foxglove, Digitalis purpurea L. Twenty D. purpurea patches were selected in North Yorkshire, U.K., ten each in woodland and garden or park habitat. All insects visiting D. purpurea within the patches were recorded over seventy 30-min bouts. The relative frequency of insect visitors to other flowering plant species within 15 m of each patch was also determined. B. hortorum and B. pascuorum were the two most frequent visitors to D. purpurea, accounting for 82 - 92% and 3 -17%, respectively, of all insect visits (n = 1682), depending on habitat. B. hortorum showed a significant preference for visiting D. purpurea relative to its frequency of visits to other available plant species. The relationship of D. purpurea with B. hortorum, which pollinates several plant species with long corollas, therefore represents a potential case of asymmetric specialization, albeit one that may vary spatially. Because D. purpurea reproduction appears dependent on insect pollination, B. hortorum and B. pascuorum may help underpin the viability of D. purpurea populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".