The structure of the flower–insect visitor system in tall-grass prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tall-grass prairie is endangered by habitat loss and fragmentation, and climate change. Flower-visiting-insect activity on two tall-grass prairie communities, one larger and more mesic than the other, was examined to determine network structure, and temporal and spatial variation. Flower-visiting insect richness and visitation rate were monitored for 2 years. Most insect-visitor taxa were Diptera, followed closely by Hymenoptera. Only 18% of insect taxa visited both communities in both years, but were responsible for 70% of all visits. The three most active insect species were Toxomerus marginatus Say, Bombus ternarius Say, and Odontomyia pubescens Day. The core plants, receiving over 67% of all visits, were Solidago canadensis L., Solidago rigida L., and Zizia aptera (Gray) Fern. Seasonal differences in insect visits were primarily due to temperature, as well as normal phenological patterns. Diptera was more abundant at one site, likely owing to differences in the quantity of nearby aquatic larval habitat. The mutualistic network of these two tall-grass prairies is significantly nested, which may make it more resilient to environmental perturbations than systems that are more compartmentalized.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".