Diurnal versus nocturnal pollination in a subalpine wetland: From network structure to plant reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diurnal and nocturnal pollinators are fundamental for the functioning of natural ecosystems and food security. However, differences between diurnal and nocturnal pollination networks and the contribution of these pollinators to plant fecundity have not been assessed comprehensively within a community context. In the Dajiuhu subalpine wetland of central China, we supplemented data from an intensive field survey with the analysis of pollen loads carried by diurnal and nocturnal pollinators to compare the structures of diurnal and nocturnal pollination networks using network parameters. Simultaneously, we compared the contribution of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators to plant reproduction of the nine dominant species based on stigma pollen placement. We found that although diurnal and nocturnal pollination networks exhibited a similar structural organization, the diurnal network displayed greater stability and broader interaction with pollinators and plants compared to the nocturnal network. However, nocturnal pollinator species tended to establish less generalized interactions with the available floral resources. Both diurnal and nocturnal pollinators played a significant role in plant reproduction, and nocturnal pollination can result in greater pollen germination. In terms of stability, the lower redundancy of links within nocturnal networks suggests they may be more vulnerable to the temporary or permanent disappearance of plant resources in the study area. Our findings highlight the differences in the contributions of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators to plant reproduction at the community level, demonstrating that nocturnal pollinators are not redundant in maintaining species diversity in communities. This knowledge should play a pivotal role in preventing future pollination declines and improving pollinator conservation efforts.
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".