Variation in rate of nectar production depends on floral display size: a pollinator manipulation hypothesis
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
Summary Pollinators typically visit more flowers on plants with larger floral displays, which should present such attractive plants with significant pollen transport losses. Many‐flowered plants with hermaphrodite flowers might reduce the costs of attractiveness by encouraging fewer sequential flower visits by pollinators. One mechanism that accomplishes this is to produce variable nectar rewards, which will cause risk‐averse foragers to leave the plant after visiting fewer flowers. We test the prediction that within‐plant variability in nectar production rate increases with the relative number of open flowers on a plant. A field survey of nine herbaceous angiosperm species native to Alberta, Canada revealed a significant positive correlation between nectar variability (measured as standard deviation) and the size of the floral display within species. This relationship existed over and above the null expectation of a positive correlation between mean and SD. Our results suggest that multiflowered plants might maximize the male fitness returns associated with a plant's attraction status (determined by relative display size), by taking advantage of risk‐averse foraging by their pollinators.
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