Pollinator effectiveness in the mixed-pollination system of a Neotropical Proteaceae, <i>Oreocallis grandiflora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In pollination systems with a diverse community of floral visitors, qualitative and quantitative variations in pollination effectiveness can lead to a system in which higher effectiveness results from the synergetic contribution of multiple pollinators. By employing a series of field and laboratory experiments in the south Andes of Ecuador, we compared the effectiveness of hummingbirds and nocturnal mammals visiting Oreocallis grandiflora, an Andean member of the Proteaceae. Pollinator effectiveness was measured with a quantitative component that assessed visitation rates to inflorescences and number of contacted stigmas per visit, and with a qualitative component that counted the number of deposited pollen grains in stigmas. Effectiveness estimates were complemented with controlled pollination experiments that contrasted fruit and viable seed set among flowers exposed to either diurnal or nocturnal pollination, self-pollinated flowers, and a control group with flowers exposed to naturally occurring pollination. Four species of hummingbirds and two species of nocturnal mammals visited the flowers of O. grandiflora. Hummingbirds outperformed nocturnal mammals in the quantitative components of pollination, while mammals were more effective than hummingbirds in the qualitative component. Pollination success was higher for the control group than for the other treatments, while hummingbirds and mammals performed similarly. Our findings suggest a case of functional complementarity in pollination: hummingbirds’ quantitative effectiveness complements nocturnal mammals’ qualitative effectiveness. Furthermore, our study demonstrates that pollination success in plants can be greater when flowers are visited by the whole diversity of pollinators.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".