Columbine pollination success not determined by a proteinaceous reward to hummingbird pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants provision pollinators with a variety of nutritious or otherwise beneficial rewards. Hummingbirds (primarily Calypte anna) pollinate the columbine Aquilegia eximia. In addition to drinking nectar, they glean entrapped insects from its sticky surfaces. To test the hypothesis that this insect carrion, an abundant and easily-collected protein source, serves as a provision to the pollinator and increases pollination I experimentally manipulated this reward and measured pollination success. I set up three treatments - an insect carrion addition, carrion removal, and an unmanipulated control - on small patches of the plant in each of five populations of A. eximia. Pollination success, measured by seed set in emasculated flowers, was unaffected by carrion level. Pollination success positively correlated with average floral display in each patch; this suggests that local nectar reward in an area is more important than this proteinaceous reward in determining pollination success. Stickiness in this system may function as an effective exclusion mechanism for smaller-bodied pollinators. While this study did not demonstrate that captured insects increased reproductive success of this columbine, this interaction (and pollinator exclusion) may play a role in other hummingbird-plant interactions, as hummingbird pollination and insect-entrapment occur together in at least nine species of six plant families.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".