Ecosystem services of pollinator diversity: a review of the relationship with pollen limitation of plant reproduction<sup>1</sup>This article is part of a Special Issue entitled “Pollination biology research in Canada: Perspectives on a mutualism at different scales”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on the ecosystem service of biodiversity suggests that higher pollinator diversity could lower pollen limitation, but these two aspects of plant–pollinator communities have only rarely been causally connected. Here we present a review of studies that produced quantitative assessments of both pollinator diversity and evenness as well as pollen limitation of focal plant species. Although pollen limitation is expected to be lower when pollinator diversity is high, our analysis suggests this relationship is weak. The relationship may be obscured when features of the plant species (e.g., average level of specialization) are confounded with features of the plant communities (e.g., habitat). We encourage researchers investigating pollen limitation to consider including measures of diversity of the floral visitors, and their effectiveness. These data would permit a more powerful test of the relationships among these variables and improve our understanding of the critical elements of stable plant–pollinator networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".