MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207676228 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2021)620

Catching the thief: Nectar robbing behaviour by bumblebees on naturalised Fuchsia magellanica in Ireland

2021· article· en· W3207676228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dara A. Stanley, Emmeline Cosnett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarPollinatorBiologyPollinationBumblebeeBotanyEcologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuchsia magellanica (Ongaraceae) is a plant with a traditionally ornithopholous pollination system, pollinated primarily by hummingbirds in its native range. As a naturalised alien plant in Ireland, F. magellanica is visited largely by bumblebees, with evidence for nectar robbing behaviour of the long-tubed flowers. We aimed to investigate nectar robbing behaviour of bumblebees on F. magellanica, and in particular whether floral and pollinator traits (size) determined likelihood of nectar robbing. While F. magellanica was visited by a number of bumblebee species, only two with shorter tongue lengths were observed to rob nectar from flowers. Although there was no observed relationship between intra-specific bee body size and nectar robbing behaviour, nectar robbing was observed most frequently in the site with the highest number of bees. Proportions of robbed flowers were low overall and varied between populations, but there was a significant relationship between flower size and whether it was nectar robbed with larger flowers robbed more often. Our work suggests that floral size determines whether a flower-visitor will choose to nectar rob or not in this system. Nectar robbing may also be related to bee density which could suggest this behaviour is driven by competition for resources, or that it is learnt by observing other bees.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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