Multiple ecological interactions: nectar robbers and hummingbirds in a highland forest in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nectar robbers are animals that extract the nectar produced by plants without effecting pollination. These animals can have negative, positive, or neutral effects on the interaction, depending on the direct and indirect effects of each participant in the system. The purpose of this work was to analyze the prevalence of nectar robbing and its temporal dynamics in a tropical highland forest in western Mexico. The system was studied in terms of the seasonal changes in (i) specific composition and abundance of hummingbird pollinators, their hosts, and the nectar robbers, (ii) use of resources by the nectarivorous birds and flowers, and (iii) prevalence of flower piercing by the cinnamon flowerpiercer, Diglossa baritula. The guild consisted of 17 species of hummingbirds, 2 species of nectar robbers, and 21 plant species that were visited by nectarivorous birds (robbers and pollinators). The relative abundance of birds and available flowers showed two peaks, one in winter and the other in the rainy season. Some plant species were used more than expected from their abundance. Overlap in the use of flowers among hummingbirds and also between hummingbirds and the nectar robbers was high. Nectar robbing was found to be widespread, occurring in almost all of the plants known to be hummingbird pollinated. The ratio of hummingbirds to nectar robbers was around 10 throughout the year.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".