Visitation frequencies of bumblebees and swallowtail butterflies to flowers and the nectar sugar concentration of <i>Rhododendron kaempferi</i> and <i>R. japonicum</i> in mountains of central Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between flower visitor composition and floral traits help us to understand floral evolution. Swallowtail butterflies have been assumed to be the main pollinators of Rhododendron kaempferi and R. japonicum based on their floral shapes, and R. kaempferi was reported to be pollinated by butterflies in southern Japan. In the mountains of central and northern Japan, however, bumblebees are abundant and candidate pollinators of Rhododendron. We found that visitation frequencies of bumblebees were higher than those of swallowtail butterflies to both of the Rhododendron species at three study sites in the mountains of central Japan. R. japonicum pollen adhered to the bodies of both floral visitors. Further, the nectar sugar concentration of R. kaempferi was in the preference range of bumblebees, whereas that of R. japonicum was suited to both bumblebees and butterflies. Taken together, these findings support the hypothesis that bumblebees are potentially also important pollinators of R. kaempferi and R. japonicum in mountains of central Japan, where they are more abundant than swallowtail butterflies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".