Variation in rate of nectar production depends on floral display size: a pollinator manipulation hypothesis
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".