Effects of spatial patterning of co-flowering plant species on pollination quantity and purity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: If two plant species share pollinators, it has been proposed that the interaction between them may range from competitive to facilitative, depending on the way in which they intermingle. In particular, the presence of a rewarding plant species may increase the rate of pollinator visitation to a less rewarding species in its vicinity, but the beneficial increase in visitation may be counteracted by a detrimental increase in heterospecific pollen transfer. We assessed this trade-off using bumble-bees foraging over a gradual spatial transition between two plant species in an indoor cage experiment. Methods: We used two 'species' of artificial flowers - one more rewarding than the other - in arrays that varied in the degree of species intermingling. The flowers dispensed and received powdered food dyes serving as pollen analogues. Captive bumble-bees visited to collect sucrose solution. We quantified dye delivery to the adhesive-tape 'stigmas' in flowers by spectrophotometry. Key Results: Across the spatial transition between species, the less attractive species received more dye (more bee visits) when in proximity to the more attractive species than it did when alone, but the larger dye loads were less pure (more heterospecific pollen transfer). The decline in purity cancelled out the gain in acquisition, so conspecific pollen receipt by the less attractive species was neutrally affected. The more attractive species received fewer visits when surrounded by the less attractive species, so the interaction between the two species was amensalism when considering conspecific pollen reception. Conclusions: Pollinator-mediated interactions between plant species depend on pollination quantity and purity, both of which can depend on spatial intermingling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".