Local Geographic Distributions of Bumble Bees Near Crested Butte, Colorado: Competition and Community Structure Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveys in 1974 of bumble bee species distributions along elevational gradients (Pyke 1982) were revisited to reevaluate the original conclusion that coexistence of bumble bee species can be ascribed to niche differentiation, primarily on the basis of proboscis lengths and the associated corolla lengths of visited flowers. Each bee species largely visited a few plant species, which were preferred relative to other species. Bee proboscis length was correlated with average corolla length of visited flowers, but not when species with relatively long and short proboscises were considered separately. Bumble bee abundance was affected by presence or absence of major plant species and, contrary to the interpretation of Pyke (1982), elevation, with neither factor dominating. Multimodal distributions of proboscis lengths and altitudinal replacement of bee species of similar proboscis length were consistent with the original hypothesis that bumble bee species compete for floral resources, especially nectar, and cannot coexist if proboscis lengths are too similar, unless one species is a "nectar robber" and hence has exclusive use of some floral resources. However, observed overlap in elevational distributions of bumble bee species with similar proboscis length cannot be reconciled with this hypothesis unless other phenomena are invoked.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".