Does competition with wind‐pollinated species alter <i> <scp>E</scp> chium plantagineum </i> 's attractiveness to a common pollinator <i> <scp>B</scp> ombus terrestris </i> ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In insect‐pollinated plants, pollinator attraction is influenced by flowers (e.g. number, size) and their associated rewards (e.g. pollen, nectar). These traits can depend on plant interactions. Indeed, below‐ground competition between plants can lead to a decrease in flower or reward production in insect‐pollinated species. 2. Wind‐pollinated plants, in particular, which are almost never studied in plant–pollinator networks, can alter insect‐pollinated plants' attractiveness through competition for nutrients. The response of pollinators to such changes has never been investigated. 3. A pot experiment was carried out in which an insect‐pollinated species, Echium plantagineum , was grown in binary mixture with three wind‐pollinated species selected to exert a panel of competitive interactions. Below‐ground competition was controlled using dividers limiting interspecific root competition. Floral traits of E . plantagineum ( i.e. flower production, floral display size, flower size and nectar production) were measured. For each species mixture, the visits ( i.e. first visit, number of visits, 10‐min sequences) of B ombus terrestris individuals released in a flight cage containing two pots were followed, one with and one without below‐ground competition. 4. Below‐ground competition significantly affected nectar's sucrose concentration but did not influence flower and nectar production. Likewise, pollinator visits were not influenced by below‐ground competition. Competitor identity significantly influenced flower and reward production of E . plantagineum, with a decrease in the presence of the most competitive wind‐pollinated species. A tendency for faster flower visitation events was also detected in the presence of the least competitive competitor. This study raises new questions regarding the influence of wind‐pollinated plants on plant–pollinator interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".