Insect pollination in the African cycad Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi Lehm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the pollination ecology of the South African cycad, Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi Lehm, were carried out to determine the role played by insects and to identify the key pollinators. Surveys of insects on the male and female cones at the time of pollination indicated that three beetle species were present in sufficient numbers during pollination to be potential pollinators, i.e. an undescribed Erotylidae sp. (Cucujoidea), Metacucujus encephalarti (Cucujoidea), and Porthetes hispidus (Curculionidae). Pollen laden specimens of all three species were found on female cones with mean pollen loads ranging between 391 and 1019 pollen grains per beetle. In behavioural experiments, individuals of P. hispidus and M. encephalarti deposited fluorescent dye on the micropyles of receptive ovules. Enclosure of pollen laden specimens of P. hispidus, M. encephalarti, or Erotylidae sp. nov. on female cones resulted in seed set that was statistically similar to open controls and significantly higher than insect exclusion treatments. These data support the conclusion that E. friderici-guilielmi is insect pollinated and provide further evidence for the role of cucujoid (Erotylidae, Boganiidae) and curculionoid (Porthetes) beetles in the pollination of Encephalartos spp.
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 | 0.001 | 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".