Relative floral density of an invasive plant affects pollinator foraging behaviour on a native plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between invasive and native plants for pollinators vary from competition to facilitation of pollination of native plants. Theory predicts that relative floral densities should account for some of this variation in outcomes, with facilitation at low floral densities and competition at high floral densities of the invader. We tested this prediction by quantifying pollination and female reproductive success of a native herb, Geranium maculatum, in three experimental arrays that varied in floral density of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii: control (no L. maackii), low floral density of L. maackii, and high floral density of L. maackii. A low density of L. maackii flowers was associated with an increase in pollinator visitation rate to G. maculatum flowers and an increase in conspecific pollen deposition compared to controls and high density arrays. Increased visitation rates were not associated with an increase in the number of visitors to low density arrays, suggesting instead that a behavioural switch in visitation within the array accounted for increased pollen deposition. In contrast, the only evidence of competition in high density arrays was a shorter duration of visits to G. maculatum flowers relative to the other treatments. The number of seeds per flower did not vary among treatments, although trends in seeds per flower were consistent with patterns of pollinator foraging behaviour. Given increased pollinator visits and pollen deposition at a low density of the invader, our study indicates that complete eradication of invasives as a management or restoration technique may have unintended negative consequences for pollination of native plants.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".