MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200281612 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2021)648

Sending private messages: Floral ultraviolet signals are correlated with pollination syndromes in Erica

2021· article· en· W4200281612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sam McCarren, Jeremy J. Midgley, Anina Coetzee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPollinationBiologyPollinatorBotanyReflectivityPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of ultraviolet (UV, wavelengths between 300-400 nm) reflectance in insect-pollinated flowers has been linked to pollination efficiency and pollination shifts, but little is known about its prevalence and function in other pollination systems and African species. We chose the genus Erica for studying the prevalence of UV because of its extreme radiation (c. 680 species) in the Cape, South Africa, with a diversity of pollination syndromes. This study quantified the prevalence and brightness of UV reflectance for five Erica pollination syndromes and tested pollinator preferences for UV reflectance in the two groups with the highest prevalence: sunbirds and long-proboscid flies. Our results show that UV colouration is absent or rare in Erica species pollinated by unclassified insects, rodents or wind. About 17 % of bird-pollinated species reflected UV but choice experiments revealed that free-ranging sunbirds showed no preference for UV signals. All sampled long-proboscid fly-pollinated species reflected UV and its experimental removal decreased seed set drastically, suggesting that long-proboscid flies in the Cape strongly prefer or depend on UV and thereby contributed to selecting for the evolution of this signal.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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