Pollen sleuthing for terrestrial plant surveys: Locating plant populations by exploiting pollen movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: We present an innovative technique for sampling, identifying, and locating plant populations that release pollen, without extensive ground surveys. This method (1) samples pollen at random locations within the target species' habitat, (2) detects species' presence using morphological pollen analysis, and (3) uses kriging to predict likely locations of populations to focus future search efforts. METHODS: in an old field. Population size varied from 0-100 flowers labeled with artificial pollen (paint pellets). After characterizing the landscape, we pan-trapped 2762 potential insect vectors from random locations across the field and washed particulate matter from their bodies to assess artificial pollen abundance with a microscope. RESULTS: Population size greatly influenced artificial pollen detection success; following random pollen trap sampling and interpolation, ground surveys would be best focused on identified areas with high pollen density and low variation in pollen density. Sampling sites most successfully detected artificial pollen when they were located at higher elevations, near showy flowering plants that were not grasses. DISCUSSION: Detection of nascent populations using the proposed system is possible but accuracy will depend on local environmental factors (e.g., wind, elevation). Conservation and invasive species control programs may be improved by using this approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".