Generalized food-deceptive orchid species flower earlier and occur at lower altitudes than rewarding ones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food-deceptive pollination, in which plants do not offer any food reward to their pollinators, is common within the Orchidaceae. As food-deceptive orchids are poorer competitors for pollinator visitation than rewarding orchids, their occurrence in a given habitat may be more constrained than that of rewarding orchids. In particular, the success of deceptive orchids strongly relies on several biotic factors such as interactions with co-flowering rewarding species and pollinators, which may vary with altitude and over time. Our study compares generalized food-deceptive (i.e. excluding sexually deceptive) and rewarding orchids to test whether (i) deceptive orchids flower earlier compared to their rewarding counterparts and whether (ii) the relative occurrence of deceptive orchids decreases with increasing altitude. To compare the flowering phenology of rewarding and deceptive orchids, we analysed data compiled from the literature at the species level over the occidental Palaearctic area. Since flowering phenology can be constrained by the latitudinal distribution of the species and by their phylogenetic relationships, we accounted for these factors in our analysis. To compare the altitudinal distribution of rewarding and deceptive orchids, we used field observations made over the entire Swiss territory and over two Swiss mountain ranges. We found that deceptive orchid species start flowering earlier than rewarding orchids do, which is in accordance with the hypotheses of exploitation of naive pollinators and/or avoidance of competition with rewarding co-occurring species. Also, the relative frequency of deceptive orchids decreases with altitude, suggesting that deception may be less profitable at high compared to low altitude.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".