The behaviour of <i>Bombus impatiens</i> (Apidae, Bombini) on tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i> Mill., Solanaceae) flowers: pollination and reward perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The foraging behaviour of pollinators can influence their efficiency in pollinating certain plant species. Improving our understanding of this behaviour can contribute to an improvement of management techniques to avoid pollination deficits. We investigated the relationship between the number of visits of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) to tomato flowers (Lycopersicon esculentum) and two variables related to the quality of the resulting fruits (weight, number of seeds), as well as the relationship between foragers’ thoracic weights, physical characteristics of thoracic vibrations (main frequency, velocity amplitude), amount of pollen removed from flowers, and the quality-related variables. In addition, we studied the capability of foragers to assess the availability of pollen in flowers. Tomato weight and seed number did not increase with the number of bee visits, neither were they correlated with the foragers’ thorax weight. Thorax weight also did not correlate with the amount of pollen removed from the flowers nor with the physical characteristics of vibration. Vibration characteristics did not change in response to the amount of pollen available on tomato flowers. Instead, foragers adjusted the time spent visiting the flowers, spending fewer time on flowers from which some pollen had already been removed on previous visits. The quantity and the production-related variables of tomatoes are not dependent on the number of bee visits (usually one visit suffices for full pollination); bigger foragers are not more efficient in pollinating tomato flowers than smaller ones; and B. impatiens foragers are capable of evaluating the amount of pollen on a flower while foraging and during pollination.
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".