Do honeybees act as pollen thieves or pollinators of <i>Datura wrightii</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Datura wrightii (Solanaceae), a common shrub in the southwestern United States, bears massive, white, night-blooming flowers that attract and reward hawkmoth pollinators. However, Apis mellifera (honeybee) foragers are often observed on its flowers, especially at dusk and dawn hours. Their foraging activities are focused on the anthers, suggesting they could be pollen thieves. We used a series of observations and manipulative experiments to determine if honeybees are detrimental or beneficial to D. wrightii. We found that honeybees were the most frequent visitors to D. wrightii flowers at both dusk and dawn, and that they removed and carried large amounts of D. wrightii pollen. Flowers were capable of being pollinated at dusk and dawn and a single visit by a honeybee was sufficient to pollinate the flowers and produce fruit. There was no evidence that restricting visitation to diurnal hours yielded fruit set that was different from when we restricted visitation (likely by hawkmoths) to evening hours. These results suggest that honeybees are capable of effective pollination of D. wrightii. Although honeybees might interfere with pollen transmission mediated by their highly specialized hawkmoth pollinators, they may also increase plant fitness by pollinating D. wrightii when hawkmoths are not present.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".