Urbanization and green corridors influence reproductive success and pollinators of common milkweed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urbanization exerts many pressures on species, yet little is known about how these pressures impact species interactions. Studies of urban plant-pollinator systems provide mounting evidence that urbanization impairs pollinator movement in fragmented urban landscapes, yet the consequences for pollinator-mediated plant reproduction remains unclear. In non-urban areas, habitat corridors can facilitate the movement of organisms including pollinators, but whether these corridors facilitate plant-pollinator interactions in urban areas remains understudied. To examine how urban environments and green corridors influence plant-pollinator interactions, we measured reproductive success in the native plant common milkweed ( Asclepias syriaca ), and the community structure of its pollinators, for two years along two urban-rural transects in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, one of which followed a green corridor. We found that urbanization decreased male fitness (i.e., pollen removal), increased fruit set (i.e., mean no. of follicles per inflorescence), and inconsistently affected female fitness (i.e., no. of follicles) in A. syriaca . Urbanization simultaneously decreased pollinator abundance but increased pollinator richness. Proximity to a green corridor inconsistently affected male fitness but increased reproductive effort (i.e., no. of inflorescences) in A. syriaca , while pollinator diversity and richness was lower in corridors. Notably, there were no consistent relationships between pollinator community structure and reproductive success in A. syriaca in both the presence, and absence, of a green corridor. These results demonstrate the complexity with which urbanization, green corridors, and pollinator communities can shape the reproductive investment and fitness of native plant populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".