Floral larceny by the stingless bee <i>Trigona amalthea</i> on granadilla (<i>Passiflora ligularis</i> Juss)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral larceny (robbery and thievery of nectar and/or pollen) by some species of stingless bees in the genus Trigona has been long reported for several plant species, although the consequences for plant reproduction are unknown for many cultivated species. Here we i) describe the behavior of Trigona amalthea Olivier in relation to flowers of granadilla (Passiflora ligularis Juss), ii) provide a preliminary assessment of fruit set in six experimental plots, one exposed to attacks by T. amalthea only (infested) and the other plots without attacks from any species (control plots), and iii) discuss potential strategies for preventing damage from T. amalthea based on species traits such as foraging range. We observed T. amalthea chewing styles and stigmas of both flower buds and mature flowers while primarily extracting pollen. Destruction of floral structures prior to ovule fertilization probably accounts for the significant reduction in fruit set in the infested plot compared to control plots, although replicated infested plots are required for robust confirmation. Moreover, negative effects may be intensified by the small size of the experimental plot. Further studies are needed to assess impacts on commercial plantations, including investigations into a potential dilution effect in larger crop fields, as well as plant mechanisms to cope with consumer damage (resistance and tolerance). Legitimate pollinators were found to cover larger distances than T. amalthea. Therefore, locating crop fields at optimal distances from bee nesting habitat might reduce damage by balancing bee services and disservices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".