Pollination ecology of the high latitude, dioecious cloudberry (<i>Rubus chamaemorus</i>; Rosaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a 3-yr study, we examined the pollinator guild and intersexual floral characteristics of the dioecious, perennial cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), which flowers in early spring. The findings contribute to our general understanding of pollination ecology at high latitudes and provide important information for the commercialization of cloudberry. Female flowers were smaller than males but provided more nectar, although this resource was low in both sexes. Insects from 43 families visited cloudberry flowers, yet four families (Apidae, Halictidae, Muscidae, Syrphidae) represented ca. 87% of all visitors observed. Introduction experiments revealed that apids and muscids are significantly poorer pollinators (based on fruit production) than halictids and syrphids, but when fruit mass or seed set was considered, there were no significant differences between families. Pollinator importance, a product of flower visitation frequency and seed set effectiveness, revealed that the dipterans were of paramount importance to the pollination of cloudberry. Furthermore, they are limited to cloudberry because their lapping mouthparts exclude them from accessing the nutritional rewards of competing Ericaceae flowers. While the total number of pollinator families observed suggest a generalist pollination system, if one considers the dominant pollinators (flies) as a functional group, then this insect-flower relationship could be considered a specialized one.
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".