Specialized and facultative nectar-feeding bats have different effects on pollination networks in mixed fruit orchards, in Southern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in the study of pollination networks have improved our ability to describe species interactions at the community level. In this study, we compared the abundance and network strength of facultative and obligate nectar-feeding bats to determine their roles in pollinating mixed fruit orchards. We were particularly interested in the effect of distance from forests and caves on the foraging activity of these two bat groups. For this study, we examined 10 pairs of orchards; each pair consisted of one orchard near to (< 1 km) and one orchard far from (> 7 km) the forest edge. We estimated the abundance of each bat group (nectarivorous vs. frugi-nectarivorous) using video observations to determine floral visitation rates. A pollination network was then created for each of the 20 study orchards and network strength was calculated for each bat group at each orchard. We found that nectarivorous bats showed higher abundance and network strength than frugi-nectarivorous bats. Both bat abundance and network strength were negatively correlated with distance to the nearest cave, however, only network strength was affected by distance to the forest. These results corroborate the importance of nectarivorous bats in pollinating crops within southern Thailand’s mixed fruit orchards. Higher network strength of bats near forests and caves emphasizes the role of natural habitats as pollinator sources.
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".