Ecological separation in foraging schedule and food type between pollinators of the California wildflower, <i>Clarkia xantiana</i> ssp. <i>xantiana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The co-occurrence of several dimensions of resource separation between coexisting consumers strengthens the hypothesis that the separation arose from and/or ameliorates interspecific competition. The two most common pollinators of the California endemic plant Clarkia xantiana ssp. xantiana (Onagraceae), the bees Hesperapis regularis (Mellitidae) and Lasioglossum pullilabre (Halictidae), are known to partition flower resources by flower colour. Here we asked whether H. regularis and L. pullilabre also partition flower resources by diurnal foraging schedule and by food type (pollen versus nectar). We also quantified diurnal patterns of nectar availability, expected to be related to foraging schedules and forager responses to flower colour. The diurnal schedules of the two species differed distinctly and significantly. The majority of L. pullilabre foraging visits occurred before midday, while the majority of H. regularis visits occurred afterwards. The two species foraged for alternative food types at significantly different frequencies—nectar and pollen approximately equally frequently for H. regularis, pollen almost exclusively for L. pullilabre. Nectar standing crop declined with time of day, but it did not clearly reflect or explain previously identified colour-morph preferences. The major pollinators of C. xantiana ssp. xantiana exhibit multiple forms of ecological separation that likely reduce the intensity of competition for floral resources.
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".