Latitudinal variation in pollinator and co-flowering communities, and their effects on reproductive success in a rewardless orchid, Cypripedium candidum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rewardless flowering plants may bloom early to take advantage of naïve pollinators and avoid competition with rewarding species. However, at high latitudes, this strategy may be constrained by the shorter growing season. I surveyed Cypripedium candidum populations to determine if reproductive success is correlated with latitude. At 21 sites, in four regions (Iowa, southern Minnesota, northern Minnesota, and Manitoba), I assessed the composition of the co-flowering community and C. candidum’s fruiting success. At 15 sites, I surveyed the insect community and quantified orchid flower morphology. As latitude increased, so did the diversity of plants and insects, but all regions shared many common taxa. Pollinating insects at higher latitudes were often too large to pollinate C. candidum, and more appropriately-sized insects were found further south. Fruiting success was highest in Iowa and was associated with a warmer growing season, a decrease in potential co-flowering competitors and an increase in facilitators.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".