Interactions among nectar robbing, floral herbivory, and ant protection in <i>Linaria vulgaris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nectar robbers are often assumed to be plant antagonists; however, empirical data show that the impacts of these animals range from negative to positive depending on the system and ecological conditions. We experimentally evaluated the combined effects of nectar robbing and ant visitation on three indices of reproductive fitness in Linaria vulgaris in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, via indirect effects on flower‐ and seed‐eating beetles ( Brachypterolus pulicarius and Gymnaetron antirrhinni ). Nectar robbing Bombus occidentalis leave holes in the nectar spurs, effectively creating “extra‐floral nectaries” that attract ants. In a paired‐plant experiment, ants were significantly more abundant on robbed than on unrobbed plants. Manipulation of ant access and nectar robbing showed that ant exclusion increased beetle attack and decreased female fitness. There was a significant ant‐by‐robbing interaction on flower damage. Patterns in the other two indices were suggestive of ant‐by‐robbing interactions, but these were not statistically significant. We also found correlations between spider occupancy on some plants and the mean number of ants (marginally negative) or beetles (significantly positive). Although the effect we report in this study may be highly dependent on spatial and temporal distributions of several interacting species, we discuss its potential role in mitigating the costs of floral parasitism, and its importance to the study of nectar robbing in general.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".