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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".