Pollination biology of <i>Echinopsis leucantha</i> (Cactaceae): passerine birds and exotic bees as effective pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cactus flowers have traditionally been considered to be specialized to certain pollination guilds, but pollination studies reveal that most species are actually generalists. This suggests that floral traits are not always predictive of the animal visitors that pollinate cactus flowers. Here, we studied the pollination of Echinopsis leucantha (Gillies ex Salm-Dyck) Walp., an endemic cactus of Argentina, whose floral traits would suggest that it is pollinated by moths. The floral lifespan and flower availability throughout the reproductive period were evaluated. Field experiments were carried out to study the reproductive system and the identity and effectiveness of floral visitors. Echinopsis leucantha flowers had a nocturnal anthesis time that extended into the following morning. The species was self-incompatible. Floral visitors included moths, bees, and passerine birds. However, diurnal visitors were more effective as pollinators than nocturnal ones. The flowers of E. leucantha were phenotypically specialized (sphingophily); however, the pollination system was functionally and ecologically generalized. The results confirm that generalized pollination systems are widespread among species of the Echinopsis genus with nocturnal flowers, for which diurnal pollinators seem to have a key role in fruit and seed production. Our study constitutes the first record of passerine bird pollination in the Cactaceae for mainland South America.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".