Indirect effects on mutualisms: parasitism of bumble bees and pollination service to plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers increasingly recognize the important role of mutualisms in structuring communities and view positive interactions in a community context rather than as simple pairwise interactions. Indirect effects, such as those that predators have on lower trophic levels, are a key process in community ecology. However, such top-down indirect effects have rarely been extended to mutualisms. Antagonists of one mutualist have the potential to negatively affect the second mutualist through negative effects on their partner, and the magnitude of such effects should vary with mutualism strength. Bumble bees are ecologically and economically important pollinators that are an ideal system to determine if such indirect effects play an important role in mutualisms. Bumble bees are attacked by an array of parasites and predators, and they interact with a range of plants that vary in their dependence on bumble bees for reproduction. We tested whether variation in parasitism rates by Nosema bombi, Crithidia bombi, and conopid flies correlated with reproduction of greenhouse-raised plants placed in the field. At multiple sites over two years, we studied four plant species that varied in reliance on bumble bees as pollinators. We found a consistent negative relationship between Nosema parasitism and measures of pollination for Trifolium pratense and Solanum carolinense, plant species with high bumble bee visitation, whereas Rudbeckia hirta and Daucus carota, plant species with generalized pollination, experienced no impacts of Nosema. However, both Crithidia and conopids showed inconsistent relationships with pollination service. Although these patterns are correlational, they provide evidence that parasites of bumble bees may have negative indirect effects on plants, and that mutualism strength can moderate the magnitude of such effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".