Potential pollinators and robbers: a study of the floral visitors of <i>Heliconia angusta</i> (Heliconiaceae) and their behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral syndromes are traditionally thought to be associated with particular pollinator groups. Ornithophilous flowers tend to have traits that facilitate bird pollination such as having long, narrow, tubular corollas, often vivid coloration and diluted, sucrose-rich nectar. However, recent studies have shown that flowers attract a broader spectrum of visitors than might be expected. Furthermore, the classification of floral visitors as ‘robbers’ or ‘pollinators’ often is not as simple as it seems, as pollinators can at times act as robbers and vice versa. We studied the species composition, behaviour and ecology of floral visitors, including potential pollinators and robbers, of Heliconia angusta (Heliconiaceae), an endemic understory herb of the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil. In addition, the impact of the plant inflorescence attractiveness and of weather and light conditions on visitor abundance and frequency was investigated.Flower visitors were found to be scarce with a total of only 151 visits being observed during 120 h of field observations. A stingless bee species (Trigona sp.) appeared to be the most abundant visitor to the ornithophilous flowers of H. angusta, along with four different species of hummingbirds and two species of butterflies. We consider Trigona sp. rather as pollen robber, but which still has the potential to be a secondary pollinator, whereas the hummingbirds were the principle legitimate visitors. Most flower visitors were recorded between 9.00 am and 1.00 pm with a higher number visiting under semi-shaded conditions than in full shade. Hummingbird numbers increased with flower abundance while the other visitor group numbers were not affected.
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 | 0.001 | 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".