Flies (Diptera) as pollinators of two dioecious plants: behaviour and implications for plant mating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the role of generalist Diptera in the pollination of two dioecious plant species, Clematis ligusticifolia Nutt. (Ranunculaceae) and Shepherdia canadensis (L.) Nutt. (Elaeagnaceae). In particular, we assess (i) whether or not generalist pollinators are unable to distinguish between the sexes of dioecious species and so visit the sexes at equivalent rates, and (ii) the number of flowers that generalist flies visit and revisit during a foraging bout, which would affect self-pollination if plants were hermaphroditic. We determined the visitation rate to each plant species during 10 min periods and recorded the number of flowers that individual pollinators visited and revisited per foraging bout. Diptera were the main pollinators, visiting both sexes at similar rates for both plant species. The main visitors to C. ligusticifolia were muscoid flies (small and large), Culicidae, and halictid bees. The number of flowers visited in this species varied with pollinator group, but groups did not differ in the frequency of revisits. Visitors to S. canadensis were primarily Syrphidae and Empididae. Neither the number of flowers visited nor the number of revisits differed between these two pollinator groups. The results for each plant species are discussed and contrasted, particularly with other studies of the behaviour of generalist and specialist pollinators. We compare the observed pollinator behaviours, and their implications for plant mating, with the various theories of the role of pollinators in the evolution of the dioecious breeding system in plants.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".