Effect of the lower lip of <i>Monarda didyma</i> on pollen removal by hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effect of the lower lip of Monarda didyma L. on pollen removal by ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris L.) through comparisons of hummingbird visits to natural, lipped flowers versus those that had their lower lip experimentally removed. Birds missed the openings of lipless flowers more often than lipped flowers and thus spent more time attempting to insert their bills into them. Once their bills entered the floral tube, handling times of hummingbirds were significantly longer at lipped than at lipless flowers. Contact durations with anthers and amounts of pollen removed by hummingbirds were significantly greater at lipped than at lipless flowers. Videotapes indicated that lips enhanced pollen removal by slowing a hummingbird's bill insertion into the floral tube, which increased the amount of time that a bird was positioned under a flower's anthers. Unlike the conventional view of hummingbird-flower evolution, which argues for the loss or reduction of lips, our results suggest that lower lips may be maintained in some hummingbird flower species, because they are preadaptations that act as nectar guides for hummingbirds and positioners for optimum pollen removal, in addition to possibly serving as landing platforms or attractants for secondary pollination by bees.Key words: Monarda didyma, pollination, flower morphology, hummingbirds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".