Pollen carryover between sequential foraging trips by a solitary bee: Implications for distant outcrossing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal pollination depends on foragers moving pollen between conspecific flowers and plants. Pollinating bees often exhibit patch fidelity and frequent grooming during a foraging trip, which results in intensely localized pollen carryover. If their host’s seed dispersal is likewise limited, then spatial mosaics of small genetic neighbourhoods should result. However, spatial distributions of genetic markers of seeds often reveal infrequent long-distance gene flow mediated by pollinating bees, seemingly at odds with expectations of bees’ local patch fidelity and suggesting an additional mechanism at work.A greenhouse experiment that used nesting Osmia californica bees foraging at sunflowers tested the pollination fate of any bodily pollen that lingers on females even after they discharge a pollen load at their nest. Once a provisioning female had returned to her nest, we moved the nest with her inside from a cage with male-fertile sunflowers to a cage with male-sterile sunflowers. There females quickly resumed foraging. They nearly always pollinated and set seed at the first male-sterile flowerhead that they visited, the result of fertile bodily pollen carried over from the previous foraging trip. Every visit to a second male-sterile flowerhead set additional seed.If, as seems likely, outbound nesting females sometimes switch between host patches, then this mechanism of pollen carryover could explain occasional distant pollen-mediated gene flow events, as summarizes in a graphic model. Carryover should mitigate inbreeding depression in threatened plant populations, or conversely, sometimes contaminate seed crops, with relevance for spatially isolating foundation seed fields and coexistence of GMO and conventional crops.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".