Pollination decays in biodiversity hotspots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As pollinators decline globally, competition for their services is expected to intensify, and this antagonism may be most severe where the number of plant species is the greatest. Using meta-analysis and comparative phylogenetic analysis, we provide a global-scale test of whether reproduction becomes more limited by pollen receipt (pollen limitation) as the number of coexisting plant species increases. As predicted, we find a significant positive relationship between pollen limitation and species richness. In addition, this pattern is particularly strong for species that are obligately outcrossing and for trees relative to herbs or shrubs. We suggest that plants occurring in species-rich communities may be more prone to pollen limitation because of interspecific competition for pollinators. As a consequence, plants in biodiversity hotspots may have a higher risk of extinction and/or experience increased selection pressure to specialize on certain pollinators or diversify into different phenological niches. The combination of higher pollen limitation and habitat destruction represents a dual risk to tropical plant species that has not been previously identified.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".