Do native bees have the potential to promote interspecific pollination in introduced <i>Impatiens</i> species?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial introductions of non-native species by humans can remove geographical barriers between species. In the absence of reproductive barriers, closely related introduced taxa may be able to hybridize, resulting in the formation of novel genotypes. These may be more suited to the new environment than either of their parent taxa, and have the potential to become more invasive. We investigated potential reproductive barriers between the non-native invasive Impatiens glandulifera and its less aggressive non-native congener I. balfourii. We examined behaviour of pollinators, including their foraging preferences and whether they switched from one species to the other. Moreover, conspecific and interspecific artificial crosses were performed between these species and seed production and the germination success of hybrid seeds were assessed.Both I. balfourii and I. glandulifera had relatively long flowering periods which mostly overlapped. Insect visitors were observed to switch from flowers of one species to the other during a single foraging bout, confirming that natural pollen transfer between species is possible. Artificial interspecific pollination resulted in the production of seeds, suggesting the presence of incomplete reproductive barriers between the two species. However, hybrid seeds mostly failed to germinate making the production of invasive hybrids unlikely. Nevertheless, because of the prolific reproductive output of these species we would not exclude the possibility that some viable hybrid seeds could be formed and become established. Further investigation of the fitness of hybrid seeds is required as hybridisation may allow Impatiens to exploit different ecological niches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".