Minute pollinators: The role of thrips (Thysanoptera) as pollinators of pointleaf manzanita, <i>Arctostaphylos pungens</i> (Ericaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feeding habits of thrips on plant tissue, and their ability to transmit viral diseases to their host plants, have usually placed these insects in the general category of pests. However, the characteristics that make them economically important, their high abundance and short- and long-distance movement capability, may also make them effective pollinators. We investigated this lesser-known role of thrips in pointleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens), a Southwestern US shrub. We measured the abundance of three species of thrips (Orothrips kelloggii, Oligothrips oreios, and Frankliniella occidentalis), examined their pollen-carrying capability, and conducted an exclusion experiment in order to determine whether thrips are able to pollinate this species, and if they do, whether they actually contribute to the reproductive success of the plant. Our data suggest that indeed thrips pollinate and do contribute significantly to reproductive success. Flowers exposed to thrips only produced significantly more fruit than did flowers from which all visitors were excluded. The roles of thrips as antagonists/mutualists are examined in the context of the numerous other floral visitors to the plant.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".