Effects of pollinators and flower bud herbivores on reproductive success of two ericaceous woody species differing in flowering season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the relative importance of pollinators and flower bud herbivores on final fruit set, the ratios of flower to flower bud (flower/bud), fruit to flower (fruit/flower), and fruit to flower bud (fruit/bud) were examined for the two bumble-bee-pollinated ericaceous species that have different flowering seasons: Pieris japonica (Thunb.) D. Don produces flower buds in autumn and blooms in early spring, whereas Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude produces flower buds and blooms in late spring. Floral longevity was longer in P. japonica than in L. ovalifolia, and bagged flowers had an even longer floral longevity. The fruit/flower ratio was similar between the cross-pollinated and control flowers in P. japonica, but was smaller in control flowers than in cross-pollinated flowers in L. ovalifolia. Despite unpredictable pollinator activity in early spring, long flowering duration and no competition for pollinators facilitated reproductive success of P. japonica. In contrast, short flowering duration and severe competition for pollinators limited the reproductive success of L. ovalifolia. Flower bud herbivory was more severe in P. japonica than in L. ovalifolia. In both species, predispersal seed herbivores were negligible. Consequently, the fruit/bud ratio was mainly affected by the flower/bud ratio in P. japonica and by the fruit/flower ratio in L. ovalifolia. Our results suggest that despite intense herbivory of flower buds, early spring flowering of P. japonica facilitates pollination because of less competition for pollinators in comparison to L. ovalifolia. Thus, the relative importance of pollinators and herbivores on fruit set differs between the two studied species that differ in flowering periods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".