Pollination of cycads in an urban environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on urban systems has documented the contributions of cities as sites where insect pollinators undergo their life cycles, contributing to the reproduction of many groups of plants. However, reports of plants whose reproduction is assisted by specialist pollinators under conditions prevalent in cities are scarce. Cycads and insect pollinators are threatened mainly by loss and modification of their habitats. Here, we describe two cases in which cycad species from two genera distributed in Mexico (Ceratozamia tenuis (Dyer) D.W. Stev. & Vovides and Dioon edule Lindl.) reproduce and germinate successfully in urban areas, aided by insects, near their natural distribution areas. The plants examined were artificially planted in different gardens within the city of Xalapa-Enríquez. We found that specimens two genera of insect pollinators, Pharaxonotha sp. (Erotylidae: Pharaxonothinae) on C. tenuis, and Parallocorynus sp., (Belidae: Oxycoryninae) on D. edule, can survive in cycad pollen strobili, maintaining ecological interactions as they would occur in wild, conserved environments. In addition, we found beetles in ovulate strobili during the pollen receptivity phase, which suggests that they effectively reach ovulate strobili with pollen from pollen strobili. Characterization of this gymnosperm–beetle pollination system, which is unexpected in urban areas due the effects of human disturbance on insect communities, could promote new conservation biology research on flagship species in environments and landscapes shaped by anthropogenic impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 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".