The behavior of insect pollinators in a teak ( <i>Tectona grandis</i> L. f.) clonal seed orchard with weedy understory in East Java
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teak is an insect-pollinated species, and seed production depends on pollinators. The objectives of this study were to determine potential pollinators of teak and their foraging behavior in obtaining alternate food sources as the basis for management recommendations. Four traps, i.e. Moczarsky-Winkler selector traps, sticky traps, yellow-pan traps, and manual traps (insect net), were put up among blooming inflorescences during the flowering period of March to May. Insects were collected and counted weekly and identified. The presence and location of the pollen on their bodies were observed. The time and duration of foraging behavior, the duration of a single visit, the number of visits in an hour, and the landing position when approaching the teak flower as well as the understory were also observed. The result showed Ceratina sp., and Braunsapis sp. (Apidae), Nomia sp. (Halictidae) were potential teak pollinators in the CSO in East Java. The insect foraging behavior supports the ability to deposit pollen onto the stigma. The presence of Mimosa pudica in the understory plays as an alternate food source for pollinators. Intensive weeding and trimming of old or dead branches should be less practiced to enhance pollinators’ populations and nesting sites.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".