Seasonal importance of flowers to Costa Rican capuchins (<i>Cebus capucinus imitator</i>): Implications for plant and primate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our goal is to investigate flower foraging by capuchin monkeys, a behavior rarely studied in wild primates. We ask what drives seasonal variation in florivory rates: flower quality and abundance or fluctuations in fruit and invertebrate abundances. We explore how capuchins affect the reproductive success of flower food species by quantifying the potential pollination rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed capuchin groups from dawn to dusk and recorded all flower foraging bouts. Flower food nutritional composition was compared to fruit and invertebrate foods. We recorded overall flower, fruit, and invertebrate abundances and compared the rate of flower foraging to these. We estimated the likelihood of pollination from the proportion of flower patch visits to each plant species that satisfied minimum behavioral requirements. RESULTS: Flower eating was highly seasonal, and was significantly negatively related to overall fruit and invertebrate abundance but not flower abundance. Although smaller than most fruits, flowers were nutritionally comparable to fruit foods by dry mass and contained higher average concentrations of protein. Capuchins are likely pollinators for Luehea speciosa; most foraging visits to this species occurred in a manner that makes outcrossing or geitonogamous pollination likely. DISCUSSION: Flowers are an important seasonal resource for capuchins. Flowers likely act as fallback foods during periods of reduced fruit and invertebrate abundance, and may exert evolutionary pressure disproportionate to their consumption. Capuchin florivory likely affects the reproductive success of some plants, potentially shaping forest structure. Our study illustrates the value of assessing the importance of rare foods in the primate diet.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".