A comparison of flower-visiting insects to rare <i>Symphyotrichum sericeum</i> and common <i>Solidago nemoralis</i> (Asteraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flower-visiting insect activity to the rare Symphyotrichum sericeum (Vent.) G.L. Nesom and the common Solidago nemoralis Ait. var. longipetiolata (Mack. & Bush) Pal. & Steyerm. was examined to detect compositional and temporal similarities. A hand pollination experiment was conducted to determine whether pollen was limiting seed set. Of the 31 insect taxa that visited these plants, Bombus bifarius Cresson was the most common visitor to both species. More insect visitors of the Halictidae and Bombyliidae were received by S. sericeum than S. nemoralis, which received more visitors of the Syrphidae and Tachinidae. The insect visitation rate was not significantly different between the two plant species. Solidago nemoralis was visited by fewer insect taxa per day than S. sericeum, but the constancy of its visitors was higher. The insect visitor composition changed over time, with B. bifarius ignoring S. sericeum plants initially, then visiting them more frequently as the number of receptive S. nemoralis capitula declined. Hand pollination increased seed set in the earliest flowering capitula of S. sericeum, but not for those flowering during the peak. This research shows that the quantity of insect visits to the rare plant is comparable with that of the common plant but that pollination quality may be lower, particularly for early blooming capitula.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".