Potential pollinators of understory populations of <i>Symphonia globulifera</i> in the Neotropics.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One difference between the forest canopy and the understory is that animals pollinate the majority of understory species in the tropical wet forest. Pollinators active in the understory are also different from those in the forest canopy and are adapted to the mesic conditions underneath the canopy. We used video cameras to observe flowers of understory Symphonia globulifera (Clusiaceae) in tropical wet forests of Costa Rica. We quantified the timing, frequency and behaviour of flower visitors to explore their potential contribution to pollination. A total of 82 flower visits were observed during 105 h of observations. Flowers were visited by ten insect species and one hummingbird species; the most active time period was between 1200-1700 h followed by the time between 0500-1000 h. The time period with fewer visitors was 1700-2200 h, during this period we observed flowers visited in multiple instances by a bushcricket (Tettigoniidae). The most frequent flower visitors were the stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula and the hummingbird Phaethornis longirostris; both came in contact with anther and stigma during visits. We observed different flower visitors from those reported for canopy populations of S. globulifera. Insects predominated, in contrast to observations in canopy populations of S. globulifera, wherein perching birds predominated. We also documented the consumption of pollen by visiting insects. These findings highlight differences in flower visitors between the forest canopy and the understory for the same tree species and contribute to better understanding of the pollination ecology of understory tropical wet forest species.
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".