MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022547908 · doi:10.1139/b02-109

Flower mites and nectar production in six hummingbird-pollinated plants with contrasting flower longevities

2002· article· en· W2022547908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos Lara, Juan Francisco Ornelas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsNectarHummingbirdBiologyPollinatorMiteBotanyPollinationHorticulturePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hummingbird flower mites and hummingbirds may compete intensely for the nectar secreted by their host plants. Here, we present the results from field experiments in which flower mites were excluded from flowers of six hummingbird-pollinated plants with contrasting flower longevities. Nectar measurements were taken on flowers from which mites were excluded and those without mite exclusion over their lifespans. The exclusion of mites had a significant positive effect on the amount of nectar available in plants with long-lived flowers. In contrast, nectar availability in short-lived flowers was not significantly reduced after mite exclusion. The significance of the mite-exclusion treatment was independent of floral morph and flower age. Results also suggest that the magnitude of the mite-exclusion treatment depends on the volume of nectar produced by the flower throughout its lifetime. The treatment effect was detected when nectar consumption, presumably by flower mites, exceeded 13% of the nectar produced by the flowers; nectar availability was not significantly reduced when nectar volume was < 7 µL per flower. It appears that flower mites consume proportionately more nectar in long-lived flowers than in short-lived flowers. Parasitic hummingbird flower mites seem to be preferentially taking advantage of plant-pollinator interactions in which flowers last several days and produce large volumes of nectar. The consequences of this finding concerning plant–hummingbird–mite interactions await further investigation. As a working hypothesis, we propose that nectar production has increased over evolutionary time not only by the selective pressures imposed by the pollinators, but also to compensate for the reduction they suffer after exploitation by nectar robbers and thieves such as flower mites.Key words: Ascidae, flower longevity, hummingbird pollination, multiple-species interactions, mutualism exploitation, nectar theft.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207