Comparison of flower-visiting behaviour of bumblebees and swallowtail butterflies to the Japanese azalea (<i>Rhododendron japonicum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examination of the efficacy of pollinators that are not morphologically matched to a flower’s shape can deepen our understanding of the main pollinators of a plant species. In central Japan, Rhododendron japonicum is visited much more frequently by bumblebees than by butterflies although its flower shape is more suited for pollination by large butterflies. Here, we observed flower-visiting behaviour of Bombus diversus queens and the alpine black swallowtail butterfly, Papilio maackii, and compared their efficacy as pollinators. Papilio maackii always touched the stigma during a flower visit, whereas B. diversus queens did so during just 54% of their flower visits. As bumblebees visit neighboring flowers of a R. japonicum tree in sequence not like Papilio maackii, we hypothesized that they deliver self pollen to R. japonicum so that the fruit set would be low. However, the fruit set in a bumblebee-dominated area was 72.5%, significantly higher than that by hand-pollination with self pollen (31.4%). This suggests that R. japonicum can obtain sufficient fruits by B. diversus queens although its flower shape morphologically matches to pollination by swallowtail butterflies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".