The Impact of Greenhouse Tomato (Solanales: Solanaceae) Floral Volatiles on Bumble Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Pollination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) production relies on pollination by commercially-produced bumble bee (Bombus impatiens Cresson) colonies. Inadequate pollination by bumble bees has been a problem for growers at certain times of year; however, its cause has yet to be determined. Bumble bees have been shown to exit tomato greenhouses to forage on flowers of other plants. This study investigates tomato's floral characteristics and their affect on bumble bee pollination by 1) observing foraging preferences for bumble bees on greenhouse tomato, 2) determining if the plant's floral advertisements could be used by the bees to estimate pollen availability, and 3) identifying temporal changes in floral display which correspond to peak bumble bee activity. Flower size (petal length, anther cone width, and anther cone length) and floral scent (release of β-phellandrene, 2-carene, α-pinene, and p-cymene) were evaluated to identify the pollinator-important characteristics of tomato flowers. Our results indicate that 1) bumble bees preferred to pollinate flowers which produce less β-phellandrene and 2-carene in comparison to flowers producing more of these volatiles, 2) flower size and floral scent are not likely used by the bees to estimate pollen availability, and 3) cultivars are inconsistent in their production of floral volatiles during peak bumble bee activity. β-phellandrene and 2-carene may be antiherbivory volatiles and reduced production during peak bee activity may help to facilitate pollination of tomato. Pollinator-repellent volatiles may help to protect flowers from damage caused by over-pollination.
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.
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 it