Aggression between floral specialist bees enhances pollination of Hibiscus (section Trionum: Malvaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialist oligoleges are bees with narrow dietary niche breadths often touted to have foraging specializations that enhance their pollination efficiency above that of co-foraging generalists (polyleges) such as honeybees Apis mellifera L. This study and many comparative pollinator efficacy studies in crops show that oligoleges on a per bee basis are not always the most efficient pollinators. Percentage of stigmatic contact visits by populations of oligolectic Ptilothrix bombiformis (Cresson) in Maryland and Mississippi show that adult bees contact stigmas and transfer 70+ pollen grains during 2% - 3% of floral visits. As low as these percentages seem, pollination efficiency of this bee varies from negative values due to the removal of stigmatic pollen during some visits to increases of 30% as Hibiscus petals close and spikes of 300% - 1000% as Ptilothrix adults display aggression inside flowers. Aggressive P. bombiformis tussle with each other, often grappling with, lunging at, and biting conspecifics. Opponents will often lose their balance, tumble around inside flowers and, in the process, more efficiently pollinate host blooms. Such aggressive interactions constituted 5% of visitation bouts to Hibiscus flowers, yet accounted for ~20% of contact visits that transferred 10 or more pollen grains per stigma. Tussles therefore represent brief agonistic entanglements that can enhance the pollination efficiency of solitary bees at host plants with large herkogamous blooms. More complex behavioural interactions between different sexes and species of foraging bees may explain the importance of greater bee diversity to overall pollinator effectiveness.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".