MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793673652 · doi:10.1093/botlinnean/box087

Pollination of Trichosalpinx (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) by biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae)

2018· article· en· W2793673652 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Bogarín, Melania Fernández, Art Borkent, Anton Heemskerk, Franco Pupulin, Santiago R. Ramírez, Erik Smets, Barbara Gravendeel

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCeratopogonidaePollinationPollinatorOrchidaceaeMegachilidaeBotanyPollenZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pleurothallidinae (Epidendreae) are a megadiverse Neotropical orchid subtribe comprising > 5100 species, most of which are probably pollinated by Diptera. The role of pollinators as drivers of species diversity is largely unknown because knowledge of pollination systems in Pleurothallidinae is still scarce. Here, we addressed the pollination of Trichosalpinx s.s. through study of floral anatomy, pollinator behaviour and floral traits shared with other angiosperms to elucidate its pollination mechanisms. We identified midge specimens with DNA barcoding and morphology, documented pollination with video recordings, studied the anatomy of flowers by combining microscopy (light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy) and histochemistry and analysed floral scents with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. We found that two Trichosalpinx spp. are pollinated exclusively by female biting midges of a Forcipomyia (Euprojoannisia) sp. (Ceratopogonidae). The midges land on the motile lip and appear to suck substances from its papillose surface.
\nWe detected secretion of carbohydrates and proteins on the lip and sepals, and thus, Trichosalpinx might stimulate a protein collection instinct in female biting midges. The well-developed mandibles and poorly developed laciniae of the pollinators indicate that they mainly feed on invertebrate hosts from which they draw haemolymph. Thus, Trichosalpinx flowers offer small quantities of proteins and carbohydrates that may act as flavour teases and together with the colour, fragrances, trichomes and movement of the lip, they probably form part of a complex deceptive system. Some other angiosperms that are also pollinated by biting midges possess similar dark purple flowers with ciliate ornamentation and use myophily, sapromyophily or kleptomyiophily as strategies to exploit different families of Diptera as pollinators. One Forcipomyia sp. (Euprojoannisia) is kleptoparasitic, suggesting that kleptomyiophily may have evolved in Trichosalpinx. The similar floral morphology among members of Trichosalpinx and some species of the closely related genera Anathallis and Lankesteriana suggests that they are also pollinated by biting midges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207