Temporal and spatial variation in extrafloral nectar and associated ants in <i>Canavalia rosea</i> (Fabaceae) on coastal dunes along the Gulf of Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extrafloral nectar production can vary depending on the structure of the plant in which it is found, as well as environmental conditions. This can in turn influence plant-ant interactions. We evaluated the role of extrafloral nectaries of Canavalia rosea as ant attractants in a coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico. We compared the productivity of the extrafloral nectaries present on leaves and inflorescences, as well as between day and night, and described the associated ant community. Nectar volume and concentration were higher in inflorescences than in leaves, and the rate of ant visitation was higher in inflorescences during the day. These results suggest congruence with the Optimal Defense Hypothesis. Nectar volume was generally greater during the night in both structures, but sugar concentration did not differ between day and night. We found a turnover in the ant species visiting C. rosea, with S. geminata being the most abundant species. The extrafloral nectar of C. rosea attracts several ant species and probably other arthropods, providing a valuable resource in a stressful system.
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".