MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384694235 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2023)741

Comparing levels of geitonogamous visitation by honey bees and other pollinators

2023· article· en· W4384694235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dillon Travis, Joshua R. Kohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorBiologyPollen sourceHoney beePollenPollinationInbreeding depressionBotanyEcologyInbreedingPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geitonogamy, the transfer of pollen from one flower to another on the same plant, is often the primary means of self-pollination in flowering plants. For self-compatible plants, self-fertilization may lead to greatly reduced offspring fitness via inbreeding depression. For self-incompatible plants, geitonogamous pollen transfer can result in low seed set, even when stigmatic pollen loads are substantial. For multiple self-compatible, native California plants, we found that honey bees visited more flowers per plant than native insects, and that offspring resulting from pollination by honey bees had reduced fitness relative to those resulting from native insect pollination. Here we investigate whether honey bees generally make more geitonogamous visits than other pollinators using data from a global survey of 41 manuscripts that reported floral visitation data. Compared to the average of all non-honey bee visitors in a plants pollinator assemblage, honey bees visit significantly more flowers per plant, though they do not differ from the non-honey bee visitor with the highest rate of geitonogamous visitation. However, the disparity between rates of geitonogamous visitation by honey bees and non-honey bee visitors is a function of the frequency of honey bees relative to non-honey bee visitors. As honey bees become increasingly numerically dominant, there is a trend for their rates of geitonogamous visitation to increase, accompanied by a significant decline in flowers visited per plant by non-honey bee visitors. While we found that honey bees visited more flowers per plant compared to the average of other visitors, large or eusocial pollinators were as likely as honey bees to be the most geitonogamous visitor.

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 score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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