MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190791868 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2021)636

Plant phylogeny as a major predictor of flower visitation by nitidulid beetles, a lineage of ancestral angiosperm pollinators

2021· article· en· W3190791868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos M. Herrera, Carlos Otero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJunta de Andalucía
KeywordsBiologyPollinatorPollinationPhylogeneticsMonophylyBotanyEcologyPollenClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant phylogeny sometimes predicts interspecific variation in pollinator composition better than floral features, and its predictive value seems to differ among major groups of insect pollinators. Earlier findings suggesting that pollination by Plant phylogeny sometimes predicts interspecific variation in pollinator composition better than gross floral features, and its predictive value seems to differ among major groups of insect pollinators. Pollination by beetles exhibits the strongest phylogenetic signal and the strongest phylogenetic conservatism, which is particularly intriguing given that beetles were probably the pollinators of early angiosperms. We examine in this paper the relationship between plant phylogeny and flower visitation by nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), an old monophyletic group of flower specialists and pollinators of gymnosperms and angiosperms. Using quantitative data on pollinator composition for 251 plant species (belonging to 167 genera in 46 families) from well-preserved Mediterranean montane habitats from southeastern Spain, the following questions were addressed: Is pollination by nitidulids correlated with plant phylogeny in the large species sample studied, and if it does, which are the relative importances of plant phylogeny, floral characteristics, and environmental features as predictors of nitidulid pollination in the plant assemblage studied ? Nitidulids were recorded in flowers of 25% of the plant species considered. Their distribution was significantly related to plant phylogeny, being clustered on certain lineages (Ranunculales, Malvales, Rosales, Asterales) and remarkably absent from others (e.g., Fabales, Lamiales). None of the environmental (habitat type, elevation) or macroscopic floral features considered (perianth type and color, flower mass) predicted nitidulid visitation after statistically accounting for the effect of plant phylogeny. We theorize that nitidulid beetles use characters of plants that track plant phylogeny at least as deep as the early radiation of the eudicots, imaginably characters such as the chemical signatures of pollen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207