Conservation Genetics of Potentially Endangered Mutualisms: Reduced Levels of Genetic Variation in Specialist versus Generalist Bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Oligolectic bees collect pollen from one or a few closely related species of plants, whereas polylectic bees visit a variety of flowers for pollen. Because of their more restricted range of host plants, it maybe expected that specialists exist in smaller, more isolated populations, with lower effective population sizes than generalists. Consequently, we hypothesized that oligolectic bees have reduced levels of genetic variation relative to related polylectic species. To test this hypothesis, we used five phylogenetically independent pairs of species in which one member was oligolectic and the other was polylectic. We assayed genetic variation in our species pairs at an average of 32 allozyme loci. Within each species pair, the oligolectic member had fewer polymorphic loci, lower average allelic richness, and lower average expected heterozygosity than its polylectic relative. Averaged over all species pairs, this corresponds to a 21% reduction in allelic richness, a 72% reduction in the proportion of polymorphic loci, and an 83% reduction in expected heterozygosity in specialists compared with generalists. Our data support the hypothesis of reduced effective population size in oligolectic bees and suggest that they may be more prone to extinction as a result. We suggest that in instances in which bee specialists are involved in mutually codependent relationships with their floral hosts, these mutualisms may be endangered for genetic and ecological reasons.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".