Pollination ecology and floral visitor spectrum of turtlehead (<i>Chelone glabra</i> L.; Plantaginaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many flowering plants engage in mutualistic interactions with animals in order to sexually reproduce, exchanging food rewards such as nectar and pollen for the service of pollen transfer between flowers. Floral reward variation strongly influences visitation patterns of both pollinating mutualists and non-mutualist consumers, with consequences for both male and female components of plant reproductive success. Despite the importance of pollination to ecological systems, the pollination ecology of many plants is poorly known. At seven sites over three years, we studied the mating system, floral visitors and pollen limitation of turtlehead (Chelone glabra L.), an eastern North America wetland herb. We found that the plant is autogamous, but requires pollinator visitation to set seed. C. glabra flowers are protandrous, with floral rewards that vary between male and female sex phases. We found diurnal variation in reward presentation that was a function of both floral phenology and consumer behavior. Bombus vagans Smith, the most common visitor to C. glabra flowers, removed a large fraction of available pollen (>36%) in single visits to newly opened flowers, and compared to other flower visitors, passively transported more pollen on flights between flowers and deposited more to conspecific stigmas, suggesting it was the most effective pollinator. The solitary bee Hylaeus annulatus L. made frequent visits to flowers, but contributed little to pollination due to morphological mismatch and because it avoided male-phase flowers. Despite high bee visitation rates, flowers were pollen limited for seed production, possibly indicating a negative effect of non-pollinating flower visitors on plant reproductive success.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".