Allometric scaling of flight energetics in Panamanian orchid bees: a comparative phylogenetic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between body size and flight energetics was studied in the clade of tropical orchid bees, in order to investigate energy metabolism and evolution. Body mass, which varied from 47 to 1065 mg, was found to strongly affect hovering flight mass-specific metabolic rates, which ranged from 114 ml CO(2) h(-1) g(-1) in small species to 37 ml CO(2) h(-1) g(-1) in large species. Similar variation of wingbeat frequency in hovering flight occurred among small to large species, and ranged from 250 to 86 Hz. The direct relationship between such traits was studied by the comparative method of phylogenetically independent contrasts (PIC), using a new molecular phylogeny generated from the cytochrome b gene partial sequences. We found wingbeat frequency variation is satisfactorily explained by variation in wing loading, after corrections for body mass and phylogeny. The correlated evolution of mass-specific metabolic rate, wingbeat frequency and wing loading was also revealed after correcting for phylogeny and body mass. Further, the effect of body size on flight energetics can be understood in terms of a relationship between wing form and kinematics, which directly influence and explain the scaling of metabolic rate in this group of bees.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".