The pollination ecology of <i>Rhododendron floccigerum</i> Franchet (Ericaceae) in Weixi, Yunnan Province, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the pollinators of Rhododendron species is of great interest due to potential conservation threats in the native range of the genus, but the pollinators of species in Rhododendron subgenus Hymenanthes section Pontica subsection Neriiflora are unknown. Bees (Hymenoptera; family Apidae) are thought to be the pollinators of many Rhododendron species; however, species in subsection Neriiflora have ornithophilous floral morphology. We studied R. floccigerum (subsection Neriiflora) to determine the identities of visiting, potentially pollinating, and robbing species through in-person and time lapsed camera trap observations. We compared floral morphological characteristics of R. floccigerum with visitor morphological measurements to determine if visitors could fit inside the corolla. Thirteen species were observed visiting R. floccigerum (two insects, two mammals, and nine birds) and this study provides the first empirical evidence of both bird and mammal visitors to Rhododendron species. We determined that the following species are potential pollinators: Bombus sp. (an insect genus), Aethopyga gouldiae, Garrulax affinis, Heterophasia melanoleuca, and Yuhina diademata (all bird species), and we suspect that Apis sp. (an insect genus), Dremomys pernyi, Tamiops swinhoei (two mammal species), Minla ignotincta, M. strigula, Parus major, and Phylloscopus affinis (four bird species) likely rob R. floccigerum. All visitors were able to fit their heads/bodies into the corolla. We also found that though predation is frequent, the number of robbers and variety of robbing methods is unlikely to contribute to floral morphological evolution or speciation. Further understanding of the pollination biology of species in subgenus Hymenanthes will allow for effective conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".