Visiting insect behaviour and pollen transport for a generalist oak-savannah wildflower,<i>Camassia quamash</i>(Asparagaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many studies have investigated plant-pollinator interactions using visit records of insects contacting floral reproductive organs. However, these studies may not reflect the effectiveness of visits, since factors such as visitor behaviour and the composition of pollen on their bodies may influence conspecific pollen transfer required for fertilisation in plants. Here we study how pollen transport to a generalist wildflower,Camassia quamash(Pursh) Greene (Asparagaceae), is influenced by the behaviour and body pollen of five functional visitor groups (AndrenaFabricius (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae)/Halictidae (Hymenoptera),Apis melliferaLinnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae), BombusLatreille (Hymenoptera: Apidae),OsmiaPanzer (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), and Syrphidae (Diptera). We found that functional visitor groups differed in their behaviour (BombusandOsmiawere legitimate visitors, contacting both anthers and stigmas) and in the amount of conspecific pollen on their bodies (A. melliferahad the highest levels andAndrena/Halictidae the lowest). Conspecific pollen receipt byC. quamashstigmas was high (>80%), and best explained by visitor behaviour rather than the proportion of visitors with high amounts of conspecific body pollen. Our findings highlight the utility of pollen analyses for understanding pollinator effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 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".